1 S.C.R. 475,  S.C.J. No. 9, 2015 SCC 9. Depending
primarily on what evidence, if any, comes from Mr. Harper’s
former wife, the defence may have a strong argument for
the admissibility of evidence pointing to Mr. Harper as a “third
( ii) The admissibility of evidence identifying Ken Robertson as a “third party suspect”
 Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Short had been having an affair
for several years. That affair was very active at the time of
Mrs. Short’s death. The defence sought to cross-examine
Mr. Robertson and his then wife in support of a claim that
Mr. Robertson may have killed Mrs. Short. The trial judge
refused to allow the questioning on the basis that there was not
a sufficient connection between Mr. Robertson and the murder.
The trial judge did, however, somewhat inconsistently, allow the
Crown to lead evidence that Mr. Robertson was at home with his
then wife on the evening that Mrs. Short was murdered.
 On appeal, counsel in addition to maintaining the argument that Mr. Robertson was a legitimate “third party suspect”,
added a wrinkle to the admissibility argument. Counsel submitted that, as it was the Crown’s theory that the appellant had
murdered Mrs. Short before he left their home just after
7:00 p.m., evidence putting Mr. Robertson at the home visiting
Mrs. Short at some time after 7:00 p.m. would effectively destroy
the case for the Crown, regardless of whether Mr. Robertson had
anything to do with Mrs. Short’s death.
 I think counsel’s submission is correct. Evidence that
Mr. Robertson was at the Short household on the evening of the
murder was relevant even if he was not the killer. The evidence
of the relationship between Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Short at the
time of her death, the e-mail messages back and forth in the
days preceding her death, the forensic evidence concerning the
substance found in Mrs. Short’s anal cavity, and Mr. Robertson’s
behaviour in the days after the murder, taken together, provided
a sufficient basis to allow the defence to explore whether
Mr. Robertson was at the Shorts’ home at some point on the
evening of October 18. The evidence that Mr. Robertson was at
home with his wife was of course equally admissible to rebut the
defence contention that Mr. Robertson was at the Shorts’ home.
 As I am satisfied that evidence supporting the inference
that Mr. Robertson was at the Shorts’ home on the evening of
October 18 was admissible regardless of whether Mr. Robertson
was implicated in the crime, it is unnecessary for me to consider
the submission that he was a legitimate “third party suspect”.