The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the shooting death of Troy Hutchinson.
The Crown's theory was that the appellant was the actual shooter, but the jury was also instructed on liability as an aider or abettor.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the mens rea required for aiding or abetting murder.
Specifically, the jury was not properly instructed that an aider or abettor must know that the principal actor has subjective foresight of death.
The error was repeated multiple times throughout the charge and was compounded by an incorrect definition of recklessness and an inadequate answer to the jury's final question.
The curative proviso was not applied because the jury's final question demonstrated that at least one juror had a reasonable doubt about the appellant being the principal actor, making it impossible to conclude that conviction was inevitable.
A new trial was ordered.