words or conduct need not amount to provocation under s. 232(2)
the Criminal Code: Cudjoe, at paras. 107-108.
The principles applied
 Several factors persuade me to reject this ground of appeal,
despite the absence of a traditional “rolled up” charge as requested by defence counsel.
 To assess the impact on the failure to include an instruction cast in the familiar terms of a “rolled up” instruction seen
in this province, it is helpful to begin with a reminder about
the purpose that underlies the typical instruction. That
purpose is to ensure that jurors do not approach their decision
on this issue in a compartmentalized way; that is to say, having
rejected any justifications, excuses or defences the evidence
tends to support, considering the probative force of the evidence spent and no longer available to determine another issue
despite its relevance to that issue. In a positive sense, the
“rolled up” instruction underscores the general direction, oft-repeated in jury charges, that factual determinations are to be
made after consideration of the cumulative effect of the whole
of the evidence bearing upon the issue. But as we know,
express instruction is not the only way to ensure the jury’s
understanding of the point.
 Second, the effect of the non-direction. When the “rolled
up” instruction first saw daylight in the mid-1980s, it was considered preferable, only sometimes mandatory. More recently, it
appears to have migrated towards the mandatory end of the spectrum. But, wherever its place on the spectrum, it is not a per se
rule to be incanted in every jury charge, the evidence notwithstanding. The need for the instruction depends on the evidence.
So too whether its inclusion is discretionary or mandatory.
 Likewise, the effect of non-direction on the sustainability
of a verdict is a variable, not a constant. Every non-direction is
not misdirection. This is not a case where something was said
which would have made wrong what was left unsaid leading to
a possible miscarriage of justice: R. v. Demeter (1975), 10 O.R.
(2d) 321,  O.J. No. 2648, 25 C.C.C. (2d) 417 (C.A.), at pp.
436-37 C.C.C., affd on other grounds  1 S.C.R. 538, 
S.C.J. No. 60.
 Third, the impact of the non-direction depends significantly on the evidentiary foundation for the instruction. There must
be an air of reality to underpin the claim that particular evidentiary content be poured into the instruction. It is especially so
where, as here, the cupboard is bare of any evidence through
out-of-court statements contemporaneous with the events, police