Reasonable Doubt and Jury Instructions

Two SCC decisions shape the way Canadian jurors are told to assess evidence. R v Lifchus (1997) sets the model jury charge on reasonable doubt — closer to absolute certainty than to a balance of probabilities, based on reason and common sense, logically connected to the evidence or its absence.

R v W(D) (1991) tells the jury how to handle competing testimony where the accused testifies: believe the accused → acquit; not believe but left in doubt by the accused's evidence → acquit; not in doubt by the accused's evidence but consider all the evidence and convict only if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.