jury instruction

R v Pan and the Price of Fairness: An “Air of Reality” in A Complex Jury Trial

In R v Pan, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the scope of the “air of reality” test as it applies to included offences in jury trials. The majority has upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s verdict that Jennifer Pan should undergo a new trial regarding her initial first-degree murder charge, but maintained her conviction related to the attempted murder charge. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial judge erred by failing to leave lesser included offences, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, to the jury where there was a realistic possibility of conviction on those offences.

Who Decides What the Jury Decides? R v BF and the Air-of-Reality Threshold

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v BF, restoring a conviction for attempted murder and rejecting the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s holding that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on a potential defence. In doing so, the SCC engaged with a fundamental question arising in the case: whether there was any air of reality to the theory that, rather than attempted murder, the accused was aiding a suicide attempt.

Protecting the Accused from Wrongful Convictions R v Riley: the SCC’s Stance on Convictions after Incorrect Use of the Vetrovec Instruction

What happens to the accused when a jury is incorrectly advised, leading to the accused’s conviction? The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) addresses this question in R v Riley, 2020 SCC 31 [Riley] by reaffirming the dissenting judge's reasons at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal assessing the Vetrovec instruction and its significance within the […]