R. v. Bisson (Y.), (1998) 222 N.R. 365 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 30, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 222 N.R. 365 (SCC);1998 CanLII 810 (SCC);[1998] 1 SCR 90;222 NR 365;155 DLR (4th) 531;121 CCC (3d) 449;1998 CanLII 843 (SCC);14 CR (5th) 1;[1998] SCJ No 21 (QL);[1998] 1 SCR 306

R. v. Bisson (Y.) (1998), 222 N.R. 365 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. FE.018

Yves Bisson (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(25821)

Indexed As: R. v. Bisson (Y.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major

and Bastarache, JJ.

February 19, 1998.

Summary:

The accused appealed a murder conviction.

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge's instructions respecting rea­sonable doubt were improper.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - At the accused's murder trial, the trial judge instructed the jury that rea­sonable doubt was "... a degree of certainty which you use every day, in your im­portant activities, whether at work, at home or in your leisure activities ..." - The judge then gave an example and stated that it "... is exactly the same degree of certainty, certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the degree of certainty you use in important activities in your life ..." - The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial - The court stated that these instructions gave rise to a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof - The court also discussed the problems that can arise where a trial judge gives examples of what constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Criminal Law - Topic 4960

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Error respecting burden of proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 2].

Counsel:

Pierre Poupart and Ronald Prégent, for the appellant;

Stéphane Lamarche and Michel Denis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Pierre Poupart and Ronald Prégent, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Stéphane Lamarche, Longueuil, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 30, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was delivered in both official languages, for the court, on February 19, 1998, by Cory, J.