propensity but part of a continuing narrative; and is more probative than prejudicial.
 I do not agree with these conclusions. The evidence was
only marginally relevant and was not probative. Further, the
effect was highly prejudicial.
 Deference is owed to a trial judge’s balancing of probative
versus prejudicial effect. As stated in R. v. Higginbottom, 
O.J. No. 2742, 156 C.C.C. (3d) 178 (C.A.), at para. 9:
A trial judge’s decision on the admissibility of evidence of prior discredita-
ble conduct involves a delicate balancing of the probative value of the evi-
dence against its prejudicial effect and is entitled to a high degree of
deference upon appellate review. . . . In my view, the trial judge’s assessment
of the evidence and his conclusion that its probative value exceeded its
potential prejudicial effect were reasonable.
 The usual deference afforded to a trial judge’s balancing
of the probative versus prejudicial effect is diminished here
because the conclusory nature of his reasons does not allow for
appellate review: see R. v. Czibulka,  O.J. No. 372, 2011
ONCA 82, 267 C.C.C. (3d) 276, at para. 23. It is not clear from
his reasons, or his later jury charge, that he was alive to the factors that impacted the probative value and enhanced the prejudicial effect.
 For the evidence of the plot between Huard and the appellant to kill Lusted to have relevance, two assumptions would
have to be made:
(1) that Mason had been murdered; and
(2) that the appellant did it.
 This required the jury to engage in a form of circular reasoning and assume facts not in evidence. There was no nexus
between the plot to murder Lusted and the murder of Mason.
In addition, the frailties of Huard’s evidence in general, combined with the timing of the plot, further diminished any potential probative value.
No nexus to the murder of Mason
 The plot was developed two years after the disappearance
of Mason. Huard testified to nothing that would connect the
plot to the Mason murder. There was no mention in Huard’s testimony of Mason’s murder or of Lusted’s involvement. There was
no triggering event to the plan to kill Lusted. Lusted had not
just gone to the police or threatened to disclose what he knew.