I would allow the appeal and direct a new trial.
 On April 16, 2011, two men with guns attempted to rob an
illegal poker tournament operating out of a banquet hall. A scuffle
between one of the robbers and the organizer of the tournament
ensued at the entrance to the banquet hall, and the robber fired
his gun. The bullet hit the ceiling. The other robber opened fire.
A man who had come to the aid of the organizer was shot and
killed. The robber who had been struggling with the organizer
was accidentally shot in the same volley. Both robbers fled on foot.
 Mark Cousins, a truck driver, saw two men running from
the banquet hall. One was carrying a gun. He watched them get
into the front seats of a dark-coloured Honda. A short time later,
while stopped at a red light, he saw the Honda again. He could
see into the vehicle from his vantage point in the driver’s seat of
the truck. According to Mr. Cousins, there were only two people
in the car and both were in the front seats.
 By the end of the Crown’s case, it was clear that the two
men Cousins saw were the robbers who had fled the banquet
hall and that the car he saw them in was a Honda Civic that had
been rented by the respondent.
 Mr. Cousins’ evidence was important because it was the
Crown’s theory that the respondent was the getaway driver of
the vehicle. On Cousins’ evidence, there was no getaway driver,
only the two robbers.
 About 25 minutes after the robbers fled the banquet hall,
one of them showed up at a hospital seeking treatment for
a gunshot wound. The hospital was a 20- to 25-minute drive
from the banquet hall.
 Forensic examination of the Civic revealed blood from the
wounded robber soaked into the back cushion on the back seat
on the driver’s side of the vehicle. No blood was found anywhere
else in the vehicle.
 There was a great deal of evidence about the use and loca-
tion of various cellphones at different times. One cellphone
(#8019) was significant to the Crown’s case against the respond-
ent. The evidence connecting that phone to the robbery included
— the #8019 phone was pinging off the tower nearest the ban-
quet hall the day before the robbery when, on the evidence,
some of the persons involved in the robbery plot were scout-
ing out the scene;