specifically instructed the jury that they “must” consider
remarks that may help the appellant. Further, the appellant did
not object to this aspect of the charge at the time of trial: see R. v.
Polimac,  O.J. No. 1983, 2010 ONCA 346, 254 C.C.C. (3d)
359, at paras. 85-87.
Issue 7: Did the trial judge err in law in the W. (D.) instruction by isolating the appellant’s evidence and character
 Mr. Cote testified in his defence. He also offered additional
defence evidence through other witnesses. Yet when the trial
judge charged the jury on the W. (D.) test, the trial judge
described the analysis the jury should give to “Mr. Cote’s evidence”. The appellant submits that this charge was in error
because the W. (D.) analysis should be applied to all of the defence
evidence, and not simply Mr. Cote’s testimony.
 Again, we disagree that the trial judge erred. He did not
isolate Mr. Cote’s testimony. He spoke of “Mr. Cote’s evidence”,
an expression capable of including all of the evidence Mr. Cote
called. In this case, the trial judge’s use of the word “evidence”
would not have been misunderstood by the jury as being confined
to the appellant’s testimony. Read as a whole, the charge
instructs the jury, at many points, to consider all of the evidence,
and clearly directs the jury to consider all evidence which assists
the appellant. The jury could not have been under any misunderstanding about its duty to consider all of the evidence in determining whether it raised a reasonable doubt about the appellant’s
guilt: R. v. Fogah,  O.J. No. 3402, 2018 ONCA 564, 362
C.C.C. (3d) 4, at para. 73.
Issue 8: Did the trial judge err in increasing the period of
 The appellant submits that the trial judge rred by considering the appellant’s rejected s. 34 defence to be an aggravating
factor, characterizing it as an attempt to shift responsibility to
 We agree with the appellant that the trial judge erred in
finding that that the appellant’s attempt to lay blame on the
deceased constituted an aggravating factor. This was the essence
of his assertion of self-defence. That said, we do not agree
that the error had an impact on the sentence imposed, or that the
sentence is unfit.
 The period of 12 years is not demonstrably unfit. Nor does
it constitute an unreasonable departure from the principle that