The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.
At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' by comparing it to the degree of certainty used in everyday activities, specifically using the example of checking the oil level in an automobile.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that using everyday examples to explain reasonable doubt is misleading and can lower the requisite standard of proof.
The Court found a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.
