Reasons for Judgment — Cromwell J. (Abella, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon JJ. concurring)
Cromwell J. ― This Crown appeal comes to us as of right based on the dissent of Rouleau J.A. in the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
We agree with Doherty J.A., writing for a majority of that court, that the trial judge’s instructions may well have led the jury to understand that the deceased’s allegedly provocative acts and the respondent’s reaction to them had relevance to the mens rea issue only if they met the narrow legal definition of provocation in s. 232 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , and that this constituted misdirection.
We therefore dismiss the appeal and affirm the Court of Appeal’s order for a new trial.