his instructions that the jury must take a very cautious approach
to the voice identification evidence relied on by the Crown.
[ 62] I see no error in the voice identification instructions.
( iii) The instructions on the wedding video
[ 63] The Crown cross-examined several defence voice identifi-
cation witnesses about a video of the appellant making a speech
at his 1982 wedding. The admissibility of the evidence was not
challenged, although the defence argued that the Crown should
not be allowed to invite the jury to compare the voice on the video
with the voice on the 911 call. The defence submitted that the
video had not been adequately authenticated. At the same time,
however, the defence argued that the jury could listen to the video
for the purpose of supporting the evidence of some defence wit-
nesses that the voice on the video was different from the voice on
the 911 call.
[ 64] The trial judge told the jury that they should be “very cautious about using the audio on this video to convict Robert
Badgerow”. The trial judge pointed out that there was no
evidence that the video accurately depicted the appellant’s voice
as it was in 1982. Having cautioned the jury, but only against using the evidence to convict the appellant, the trial judge went on
to tell the jury that they could compare the voice on the 911 call
with the voice in the wedding video. The defence had argued to
the jury that a comparison of the two supported those witnesses
who said that it was not the appellant making the 911 call.
 Mr. Badgerow was sufficiently identified as the speaker in
the 1982 video to permit comparison of his voice in the video with
the voice on the 911 call. There were unknown factors that made
the comparison potentially of little value. The trial judge adequately cautioned the jury against using the video evidence to incriminate the appellant. At the same time, he left the evidence
with the jury as something it could use, if it saw fit, to assist in
determining whether the appellant was the 911 caller. The
instructions were appropriate.
( iv) The other alleged errors in the jury instructions
 The appellant’s factum sets out four additional alleged
errors in the instructions. He submits that, considered in combi-
nation, they render the instructions “inaccurate and unbal-
anced”. Two relate to the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence
of two witnesses, a toxicologist and the former boyfriend of
Ms. Werendowicz. Two focus on comments made by the trial
judge, which the appellant alleges amounted to unfair