The appellant was acquitted of armed robbery at trial after the trial judge concluded the Crown failed to prove both that the appellant was a principal offender and that two specifically named individuals were the principal offenders, which the judge held was a prerequisite to party liability.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in requiring proof of the identity of specific principals as a prerequisite for party liability, but limited the new trial to the party liability theory only.
The majority of the Supreme Court agreed the trial judge erred in law in assessing party liability, as the Crown need not identify specific principals when prosecuting an accused as an abettor or counsellor.
The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal but allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal exceeded its powers under s. 686(8) of the Criminal Code by restricting the new trial to a single theory of liability on a single charge.
A full new trial was ordered on the armed robbery charge, and the doctrine of issue estoppel was found inapplicable where the acquittal was set aside in its entirety.
