R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. Lifchus: What 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' Means

Lifchus: defining reasonable doubt

• It is logically connected to the evidence or the absence of evidence.
• It is not imaginary or frivolous.
• Proof of probable or likely guilt is not enough.
• The standard is closely tied to the presumption of innocence. Later, in R. v. Starr (2000), the Court said it falls much closer to absolute certainty than to the balance of probabilities.

W.(D.): when the accused testifies

1. If you believe the evidence of the accused, you must acquit.
2. If you do not believe the accused's evidence but are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
3. Even if you are not left in doubt by the accused's evidence, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt.

Why it matters

A trial is not a contest of who is more believable. Judges who simply prefer one side's version without applying W.(D.) can be overturned on appeal. In traffic court, this means a defendant's credible testimony, or gaps in the officer's evidence, can lead to an acquittal even where the officer seems sincere.

Photos from Pexels: The scales of justice beside a laptop · A Lady Justice statue holding the scales.

This article is general information for people in Ontario, not legal advice. Rules, forms and deadlines change, and every situation is different. Check the current rule or speak to a licensed legal professional before you act.