The respondent, Mr. Goforth, and his wife, Ms. Goforth, were jointly charged with the second-degree murder of their three-year-old foster child and with unlawfully causing bodily harm to a second two-year-old foster child. The predicate offence underlying both charges was failing to provide the necessaries of life – primarily as a result of starvation and neglect – contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code. At trial, Mr. Goforth argued that Ms. Goforth was the primary provider of day-to-day childcare responsibilities and that he spent very little time with the children. He was therefore unaware that they were ill.A jury convicted Ms. Goforth of second-degree murder of the older child. The jury acquitted Mr. Goforth of murder but convicted him of the lesser and included offence of manslaughter. Both Mr. and Ms. Goforth were convicted of unlawfully causing bodily harm to the younger child.Mr. and Ms. Goforth appealed to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. All three members of the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Goforth’s conviction appeal, but a majority allowed Mr. Goforth’s conviction appeal, set aside his convictions, and ordered a new trial. The majority concluded that, in the trial judge’s jury instructions, she made several material legal errors pertaining to the mens rea of s. 215 and failed to adequately relate the evidence at trial to the mens rea of s. 215. In dissent, Caldwell J.A. would have dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related