In December 2007 or January 2008, she paid one man $25,000 to carry out the killing, but he then refused, demanding more compensation.

She approached another person and was contacted by a third, an undercover RCMP officer, posing as a “hit man”.

Later that same night, she provided an address and a picture of her husband to the “hit man.” Shortly after, she was arrested and charged with counselling the commission of an offence not committed contrary to s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C.

He based this conclusion on the Ms. Doucet’s admission that the Crown had proved a prima facie case and on the audio and video tapes of recorded conversations with the undercover officer and a statement made on arrest.

The trial judge accepted her version and acquitted her on the basis she had established she was acting under duress.

The majority entered a stay while the dissenting judge, Fish J., would have ordered a new trial, leaving it to the Crown to determine whether a retrial was in the public interest.

While not being available on the fact, the SCC's wider discussion of the law of duress in Canada is instructive.

Duress is an excuse based defence which operates to negate criminal liability where the offence is the product of an accused’s morally involuntary conduct.

Apart from this, the decision in Ryan brought the statutory and common law versions of the defence of duress into relative harmony.

Following the release of the decision on January 18, 2013, Michael Ryan, ex-husband of the accused denied any of the allegations made.