What is the test for a unanimous verdict?

Counsel for the appellant relies upon an extract from the decision in Latour v. The King (1950) 1950 CanLII 12 (SCC), 11 C.R. 1 where Fauteux J. (as he then was) stated at page 15: "The other matter in which comments may be added, although the point was not raised by the appellant, is related to the following direction given to the jury: 'This is an important case and you must agree upon a verdict. This means that you must be unanimous.' This is all that was said on the subject. If one of the jurors could have reasonably understood from this direction--and it may be open to such construction -- that there was an obligation to agree upon a verdict, the direction would be bad in law. For it is not only the right but the duty of a juror to disagree if, after full and sincere consideration of the facts of the case, in the light of the directions received on the law, he is unable conscientiously, to accept, after honest discussion with his colleagues, the views of the latter. To render a verdict, the jurors must be unanimous but this does not mean that they are obliged to agree, but that only a unanimity of views shall constitute a verdict bringing the case to an end. The obligation is not to agree but to co-operate honestly in the study of the facts of a case for its proper determination according to law."

Counsel for the appellant next relies upon Harrison v. The Queen (1974) 27 C.R.N.S. 294. In that case the trial judge instructed the jury that: "'You must be unanimous as to any verdict that you bring back or as to an acquittal. All twelve of you must agree to convict or acquit, and this applies to each accused and to all charges'?"