fact provoked by an insult or wrongful act that would not have
caused the “ordinary person” to lose control and act “on the sudden” while out of control has no defence: see Thibert, at para. 23;
and Tran, at paras. 32-34. The defence of provocation can be left
with the jury only if there is an “air of reality” to both the objective and subjective components of the defence.
Was there evidence of an insult capable of depriving the ordinary person of self-control?
 The ordinary person for the purposes of provocation is
described in Thibert, at para. 18:
The “ordinary person” must be of the same age, and sex, and share with the
accused such other factors as would give the act or insult in question
a special significance and have experienced the same series of acts or insults
as those experienced by the accused.
 In the present case, the prior relationship of Mr. Suarez-Noa and Ms. Cowell and the immediately preceding events of
the evening of March 9 provide the context in which the “
ordinary person” inquiry must be conducted. In my view, the words
Mr. Suarez-Noa testified Ms. Cowell uttered immediately before
the attack could reasonably be viewed as a denigrating taunt
depicting Mr. Suarez-Noa, because he was an immigrant,
as worthless and powerless to stop Ms. Cowell from doing whatever she wanted to do to him, including taking his son permanently out of his life and requiring Mr. Suarez-Noa to financially
support her indefinitely. The words, in the context in which
they were uttered, qualify as “injuriously contemptuous speech
or behaviour . . . intended to wound self-respect; an affront;
indignity”: Thibert, at para. 8.
 The question whether the insult was sufficient to deprive
an ordinary person of the power of self-control presents the most
difficult feature of the provocation inquiry. As indicated in Pap-
pas, at para. 33:
[W]hat would suffice to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control is
a question of degree that the jury is well placed to decide, and one which,
in cases of doubt, should be left to the jury.
 Placing the evidence in its most favourable light for the
defence, Mr. Suarez-Noa badly wanted to maintain his relationship with Ms. Cowell and their son. On his evidence, on the
evening of the homicide, Ms. Cowell had invited him back into
the relationship specifically acknowledging their son’s need for
his father. On Mr. Suarez-Noa’s evidence, the three enjoyed
a happy family evening together. He was optimistic. On his evidence, Ms. Cowell suddenly, and without warning, once again