I would not give effect to this ground of appeal.
5. What is the appropriate remedy?
 The choice is an acquittal or a new trial. Abbey submits
that we ought to enter an acquittal. He has been in custody for
nine years. And once Totten’s evidence on a teardrop tattoo is
excluded, the Crown’s case rests principally on the dubious testimony of the three Malvern gang members, S., B. and W.
 I would not give effect to Abbey’s submission. In my view,
the appropriate order is for another new trial, as unpalatable as
that order may be over 13 years after the murder. Admittedly
without Totten’s evidence on the meaning of a teardrop tattoo, the
Crown’s case is not overly strong. But it is not wholly devoid of
substance. The evidence of S., B. and W., each implicating Abbey
in the murder, remains. And I note as well, their evidence on their
understanding of the meaning of a teardrop tattoo was, along
with Totten’s evidence, excluded at the first trial, yet held admissible by this court’s 2009 judgment in Abbey #1, at para. 160. In
the light of their evidence, I cannot say that no reasonable jury,
properly instructed, would convict Abbey.
 The Crown is entitled to retry Abbey if it wishes to do so.
The interests of Abbey must be taken into account, but so too
must the interests of the family of the victim and the public
 I would admit the fresh evidence, allow the appeal, set aside
Abbey’s conviction for first degree murder and order a new trial.
Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc. et al.
Mobile Zone Inc. et al. v. Net Connect Installation Inc. et al.
[Indexed as: Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc.]
2017 ONCA 766
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Hourigan, L.B. Roberts and Nordheimer JJ.A.
October 3, 2017
Civil procedure — Costs — Full indemnity — Motion judge not erring in
granting full indemnity costs against defendants where they attempted to
place funds out of reach of plaintiffs and fabricated evidence.