Provocation at trial
 Experienced trial counsel directed few questions to eye-
witnesses to establish an evidentiary foundation for an argument
later that provocation was in play as a basis for a verdict of man-
slaughter. Questions relating to the objective and subjective com-
ponents of provocation. Such as the suddenness of the alleged
wrongful act. And of the shooter’s response. Questions of this
nature could have been put to witnesses like Albert Grant, the
cashier and the victim who survived the shooting without com-
promise of the primary defence advanced.
 The prospect of a verdict of manslaughter based on the
statutory partial defence of provocation appears first to have been
raised by defence counsel at trial during the pre-charge conference. Counsel relied on the surveillance videos as the basis for his
submissions. He acknowledged that he had put no questions to
any witnesses to lay an evidentiary foundation for the defence,
but argued that he need not have done so because the groundwork was established by the video itself. The wrongful act relied
upon was Grant’s manhandling of the shooter by putting him in
a headlock and immobilizing his hands with his baton.
 The trial Crown disputed the evidentiary foundation for
The ruling of the trial judge
 When defence counsel asked the trial judge to instruct the
jury on provocation, the trial judge questioned whether there
was any evidence of a wrongful act on Grant’s part when he
responded to the man who approached him from behind. He also
queried whether there was any evidence of a wrongful act that
would deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control.
 Defence counsel argued that what was recorded on the
surveillance video put the statutory partial defence of provocation
in play. The trial judge disagreed and said that he would not
instruct the jury on provocation.
The arguments on appeal
 In this court, the appellant reiterates his submission that
the events recorded on the video surveillance system satisfy the air
of reality threshold for provocation. They reveal, he says, that
Grant initiated the altercation with the shooter who approached
him from behind. Grant committed an assault when he moved
towards the shooter, put him in a headlock and immobilized his
hands with the extendable baton. The video constituted direct evi-
dence on both the objective and subjective elements of provocation.