Sophie Dubé

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder at trial.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave additional instructions to the jury, in response to a specific question on being an accessory and being a party to an offence, that were incomplete and confusing.

The Court also noted, without deciding, the question whether a conviction for first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code could be based on the accused being a party to the offence within the meaning of s. 21(2).

The verdict of guilty was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The respondents, owners of a second-hand store, purchased goods from an undercover police officer who hinted the goods were stolen.

They were charged with laundering proceeds of crime under s. 462.31 of the Criminal Code, specifically for transferring the possession of property.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the French version of s. 462.31, which is narrower than the English version, must be favoured under the rules of bilingual statutory interpretation.

Under the French version, the act of purchasing property does not constitute a 'transfer of possession'.

The Court also clarified that the term 'convert' does not require an intent to conceal.

The appeal by the Crown was dismissed.