The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after intervening in a street altercation that ended in the victim's death.
At trial, the judge refused three requests to put the defence of provocation to the jury.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred, finding that a careful reading of the accused's testimony, in light of the evidence as a whole, sufficiently supported the inferences necessary for the defence of provocation to apply.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
The dissent would have upheld the conviction, finding that neither the objective nor subjective elements of provocation met the air of reality test.
