La disposition réparatrice peut trouver application si le verdict du jury n'est pas entaché d'erreur juridique à même les directives qu'il a reçu et que ses conclusions sont révélées sans ambiguïté par le verdict

R. v. Ronald, 2019 ONCA 971

Lien vers la décision

[68]      There is, however, at least one situation in which the court has applied the curative proviso to the erroneous failure to leave a possible verdict on an included offence. In considering the applicability of the proviso, the court can take into account findings of fact implicit in the verdict or verdicts returned by the jury as long as those verdicts are not tainted by the legal error, and those findings are unambiguously revealed by the verdict: Haughton; R. v. Elkins (1995), 1995 CanLII 3510 (ON CA), 26 O.R. (3d) 161, at pp. 170-172, leave to appeal refused, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 62; R. v. Mulligan (2006), 2006 CanLII 15625 (ON CA), 80 O.R. (3d) 537, at para. 60 (C.A.); Sarrazin (ONCA), at paras. 70-72; Sarrazin (SCC), at paras. 30-31; R. v. Pilon, 2009 ONCA 248, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 109, at paras. 76-80; R. v. Humaid (2006), 2006 CanLII 12287 (ON CA), 81 O.R. (3d) 456, at paras. 88-90 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 232.