contradicted by the video which provided objective evidence about
what actually happened. Rin Ken did not see the stabbing. What
she did see was the deceased bleeding and using his left arm to
put pressure on the right side of his torso heading towards an
exit. At that time, which was obviously after the stabbing, Rin
Ken saw this man with a white shirt and “checker board” pattern
pull out a folding knife and chase the deceased. The video
depicted no such activity.
 In his closing address at trial, defence counsel acknowledged that Rin Ken’s testimony was contradicted by the rest of
the evidence adduced at trial. Counsel distanced himself from the
evidence appellate counsel now advances as warranting a new
trial because that evidence was not properly described by the trial
judge in his charge to the jury.
 The respondent also points out that, in the final analysis,
the video was the best evidence of who did what to whom. What is
more, the trial judge made it clear to the jury that it was their
recollection of the evidence that counted, not that of the trial
judge or of counsel.
The governing principles
 No parade of precedent is required to establish that in
a criminal jury trial, decisions on issues of fact are for the jury to
make on the basis of the whole of the evidence adduced at trial
and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.
 Equally uncontroversial is the obligation of the judge
presiding in a criminal jury trial to review the substantial features of the evidence adduced and to relate it to the issues
raised so that the jury appreciates the value and effect of that
evidence: R. v. Azoulay,  2 S.C.R. 495,  S.C.J. No.
39, at p. 498 S.C.R. Invariably, juries are instructed that they
are to make their decision on the basis of their individual and
collective recollections of the evidence, not that of the trial
judge or counsel.
 As a general rule, a misstatement of a piece of evidence
in a jury charge does not amount to reversible error, especially
where there has been no objection taken at trial. The same
may be said of a failure to refer to an item of evidence. But
sometimes the misstatement or omission can be cause for
reversal. As for example, where the misstatement relates to
a very important piece of evidence bearing on the determinative issue at trial, or the omission is of a piece of evidence that
is the sole support for a defence: R. v. Bucik,  O.J.
No. 3545, 2011 ONCA 546, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 421, at para. 23;
Demeter (C.A.), at pp. 436-37 C.C.C.