act for the appellant. The trial judge seems to have assumed
that the appellant wanted trial counsel to continue to act. The
assumption may or may not have been accurate. A proper
inquiry would have removed any uncertainty.
 Trial counsel’s application to be removed from the record
put the appellant in a difficult position, although he may well
have been responsible for his own predicament. If possible,
I think it would have been helpful had the appellant received
some legal advice from duty counsel, or perhaps some senior
member of the bar, before the application proceeded. Counsel
could have ensured that the appellant understood the nature of
the application, his options in respect of representation and participation in the application, his right to maintain the confidentiality of his communications with his trial lawyer, and the
potential impact of the outcome of the application on the timing
of, and the appellant’s representation at, his upcoming trial.
B: The other grounds of appeal
( i) The admissibility of “third party suspect” evidence
referable to Geoff Harper
 The trial judge excluded evidence offered to support the
inference that Geoff Harper had attempted to steal gas from the
Shorts’ gas tank on the night of Mrs. Short’s murder. The
defence argued that the evidence supported the inference that
Mrs. Short had interrupted the gas theft, and that Geoff Harper
had killed her.
 On appeal, counsel argued that the trial judge was wrong
in his ruling. Counsel also sought to introduce “fresh evidence”
said to provide further evidence linking Geoff Harper to the gas
theft and the murder. Some of the “fresh evidence” consisted of
material that could have been brought forward at the first trial.
However, the most significant part of the “fresh evidence”
involved statements attributed to Mr. Harper’s former wife by
various people, including an investigator hired by the appellant
post-conviction. At least one of those statements strongly implicates Geoff Harper in Mrs. Short’s death.
 There is no need to consider the correctness of the trial
judge’s ruling that the defence could not lead evidence pointing
to Geoff Harper as a suspect. Presumably, if the defence
renews the motion at the new trial, the evidentiary record
will include at least some of the material placed before this
court. Admissibility will depend upon an application of the well-established legal principles to that record: e.g., R. v. Grandinetti,
 1 S.C.R. 27,  S.C.J. No. 3, 2005 SCC 5; R. v. Grant,