The accused, a stockbroker, was convicted of fraud after a jury trial.
The trial judge instructed the jury that 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' should be understood in its 'ordinary, natural every day sense'.
The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the jury charge insufficient.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that trial judges must explain the concept of reasonable doubt to juries.
The Court provided a model charge, emphasizing that reasonable doubt is inextricably linked to the presumption of innocence, is not an ordinary everyday concept, and must be based on reason and common sense rather than sympathy or prejudice.
The trial judge's failure to properly define the standard of proof was a fundamental error that could not be saved by the curative proviso.
