deal for himself. By the time of the appellant’s trial, Mr. Clark had
pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was serving his sentence.
 The Crown’s theory at trial was that the appellant was
acting on instructions from another individual, Mr. Kadeem
Jowrey, to shoot Mr. Akindejoye. The Crown theorized that Mr.
Clark lured Mr. Akindejoye to the scene, where the appellant was
waiting. Mr. Netzereab, the other victim, accompanied Mr.
Akindejoye to the scene and was also shot. Mr. Akindejoye’s evidence at trial was consistent with the Crown’s theory. Mr. Clark’s
preliminary inquiry testimony, which was admitted for its truth
pursuant to K.G.B., was also consistent with the Crown’s theory:
R. v. B. (K.G.),  1 S.C.R. 740,  S.C.J. No. 22.
 The defence position was that Mr. Clark was the shooter,
and that the appellant was not involved in any way. Mr. Clark’s
trial testimony, and his testimony on a pre-trial motion, were consistent with the defence position.
Grounds of Appeal
 The appellant appeals from conviction only. He advances six
grounds of appeal:
(1) Did the trial judge’s delay in providing reasons for allowing
the Crown’s joint s. 9(2) Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c. C-5 application and B. (K.G.) application rebut the pre-
sumption of integrity, such that the trial judge erred in law
by failing to provide reasons?
(2) Did the trial judge err by admitting Mr. Clark’s preliminary
inquiry testimony for its truth?
(3) Did the trial judge err by failing to provide a W. (D.)
instruction in respect of Mr. Clark and Mr. Akindejoye’s evidence?
(4) Did the trial judge err by failing to give a “Soobrian limiting
instruction” in respect of Mr. Clark’s evidence?
(5) Did the trial judge err by failing to properly instruct the jury
on the use they could make of Mr. Clark’s and Mr.
Akindejoye’s prior consistent statements?
(6) Were the verdicts unreasonable?
 For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal on the
third ground of appeal and order a new trial. In the circumstances
of this case, the jury required a W. (D.)-type instruction to understand the use they could make of Mr. Clark’s and Mr.
Akindejoye’s exculpatory evidence: R. v. W. (D.),  1 S.C.R.
742,  S.C.J. No. 26.