In this case, the respondent continues, the shooter initiated
the confrontation by running up to Grant from behind. Grant’s
response was self-defending, predictable and brief. It ended with
the shooter agreeing not to struggle, indicative of a resumption,
not a loss of self-control. At all events, the prior conduct was not
of such a nature or character that it would cause an ordinary person to lose the power of self-control and there was no evidence
about the appellant’s actual state of mind.
 The respondent joins issue with the appellant’s claim that
the trial judge impermissibly weighed the circumstantial evidence
and drew determinate factual inferences from that evidence. Not
so, says the respondent. The trial judge simply concluded, as he
was entitled to do, that the field of factual inferences that could
be drawn from the evidence as a whole did not include those
essential to engage the defence of provocation.
The governing principles
 The parties do not differ on the essential elements of the
statutory partial defence of provocation or on the standard
the appellant was required to meet on the evidence adduced at
trial to warrant submission of the defence to the jury. However,
they part company on the adequacy of the evidence to satisfy the
threshold to put the defence in play.
 The definition of provocation applicable in this case has since
been repealed. The former s. 232(2) of the Criminal Code read:
232(2) A wrongful act or an insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient
to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation
for the purposes of this section if the accused acted on it on the sudden and
before there was time for his passion to cool.
 Provocation only arises for consideration where the Crown
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, in unlawfully killing
the deceased, an accused committed murder: Criminal Code,
s. 232(1); R. v. Tran,  3 S.C.R. 350,  S.C.J. No. 58,
2010 SCC 58, at para. 10.
 Provocation consists of two elements, one objective, the
other subjective. Each element has two components.
 The objective element consists of
( i) a wrongful act or insult; and
( ii) the wrongful act or insult is sufficient to cause an ordinary
person to lose the power of self-control.
See Tran, at para. 25; R. v. Cairney,  3 S.C.R. 420, 
S.C.J. No. 55, 2013 SCC 55, at para. 33.