Obviously, since jurors may arrive at a unanimous verdict for different reasons and on different theories of the case, as was made clear in Regina v. Thatcher, 1987 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652, it becomes speculative and artificial to ascribe a single set of factual findings to the jury unless it is clear that the jury must have found those facts unanimously . So where, as in this case, an ambiguity exists, the trial judge is to consider the evidence and make his or her own findings of fact consistent with the evidence and the jury’s finding.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.