How has the Court of Appeal interpreted the meaning of the word unanimous?

That direction led to a split decision. Schroeder J.A., speaking for the majority said at page 315: "I am unable to assent to appellant's counsel's submission that the learned trial Judge's charge herein was open to a construction by the jury that they were under an obligation to agree upon a verdict and that it was not open to any one of them to disagree if he honestly held an opinion which was out of harmony with that of his fellow jurors. In my opinion the language used is capable of no such inference. The plain meaning which it would convey even to the mind of a layman is essentially that a verdict to convict or acquit must be unanimous. The direction in Latour v. The King, supra, went much beyond this and is clearly distinguishable from the direction given in the present case."