The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of his ex-wife.
The Crown advanced two theories: that the appellant personally killed the victim, or that he aided and abetted someone else to do so.
The trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder under either theory, without requiring unanimity on which specific theory occurred.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the Criminal Code makes the distinction between a principal and an aider/abettor legally irrelevant, and therefore jury unanimity on the exact mode of participation is not required provided all jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the crime.
