R. v. Pan
| Date | April 10, 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2025 CSC 12 |
| On Appeal From | Court of Appeal for Ontario |
| Judges | Majority: Wagner C.J., Côté, Rowe, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin, Moreau Dissent: Karakatsanis, Martin |
| Case Number | 40839 |
The Supreme Court upholds the convictions for attempted murder and the order for a new trial in a high-profile shooting of an Ontario couple in their home.
Jennifer Pan lived with her parents, with whom she had a difficult relationship. In November 2010, three armed intruders entered the Pan family home. Both parents were shot in the head and shoulders. Mrs. Pan died, and Mr. Pan was seriously injured but survived. Jennifer, who was also at the residence, was uninjured and tied to a stair railing.
Jennifer, along with Daniel Wong, Lenford Crawford, and David Mylvaganam, were charged with the first-degree murder of Ms. Pan and attempted murder of Mr. Pan. The Crown’s theory at trial was that Jennifer arranged, through Messrs. Wong and Crawford, to have her parents killed by individuals, including Mr. Mylvaganam. At trial, a jury found them guilty of both charges.
All appealed their convictions, citing several errors they alleged were made at trial. One issue was that the trial judge had instructed the jury that, based on the evidence, there were only two scenarios that could lead to the defendants’ guilt. The first scenario was that there had been a single, premeditated and deliberate attack with the intent to kill both Mr. and Mrs. Pan. The second scenario was that there had been a home invasion and robbery, during which the Pans were shot. The defense, however, insisted that the trial judge instruct the jury on a third scenario: that there had been a plan solely to kill Mr. Pan, and that it was in carrying out that plan that Mrs. Pan was shot. If the jury accepted this third scenario, some of the accused could be convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter rather than first-degree murder. The trial judge declined to instruct the jury on this possibility because, he said, it was not “on an air of reality,” meaning that no reasonable jury could reach that conclusion in the circumstances of this case.
The defendants also argued that the trial judge erred in allowing a slide show prepared by the prosecution into the jury room, and that the judge also erred in failing to dismiss a juror over an allegation of bias and in directing the jury on how to use character evidence from another defendant, Eric Carty, who was being tried separately.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It stated that the third scenario was plausible and should have been left to the jury. It said that, for this reason, a new trial was necessary on the charge of first-degree murder. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions for the attempted murder of Mr. Pan because, it stated, the trial judge’s error had not vitiated those convictions. It concluded that the trial judge had not erred with respect to the slide show, the allegation of juror bias, or the evidence concerning Mr. Carty.
The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, seeking to have the first-degree murder convictions reinstated. The Crown argued that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the third scenario was a reasonable possibility and that the convictions should therefore be set aside.
Each of the accused filed a cross-appeal, seeking to have their convictions for attempted murder overturned. They argued that the error found by the Court of Appeal also vitiated those convictions, such that a new trial was required on both counts. They also resubmitted their arguments rejected by the Court of Appeal regarding the slide show, the allegation of juror bias, and the evidence concerning Mr. Carty.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeals.
The jury should have been instructed to consider the possibility that there was a plan to kill only Mr. Pan.
Writing for the majority of the Court, Chief Justice Wagner said that the Court of Appeal was correct in ordering a new trial for all the accused on the first-degree murder charge. The third scenario was plausible and the jury should have been allowed to consider it. However, the trial judge’s error did not vitiate the convictions for attempted murder, and those convictions are accordingly upheld. On the other grounds, there was no reversible error in the trial judge’s approach to the slide show, and the allegations of juror bias and the instructions given to the jury on the evidence concerning Mr. Carty did not allow the convictions to be disturbed.
