Mr. Akindejoye to the scene, where the appellant shot him. On
April 10, 2013, at the appellant’s preliminary inquiry, he gave testimony consistent with his statement to police. Finally, an agreed
statement of facts read in on Mr. Clark’s guilty plea to aggravated
assault on May 9, 2013 was again consistent with this account of
 Later, however, on a pre-trial motion shortly before the
beginning of the appellant’s trial, Mr. Clark inculpated himself as
the shooter. He testified that he had lied about the appellant
being the shooter in order to secure a more favourable plea deal
for himself. He stated that at the beginning of his interrogation
on August 8, 2012, the police showed him a chart that depicted
what they believed had happened. According to the chart, Mr.
Jowrey ordered the shooting, the appellant was the shooter and
Mr. Clark lured Mr. Akindejoye to the scene. While Mr. Clark was
initially reluctant to cooperate with police, he ultimately made
a statement consistent with the police’s theory. At the pre-trial
motion, Mr. Clark claimed that the police made off-camera
threats and inducements which influenced him to cooperate. He
believed that by adopting the police’s theory that the appellant
was the shooter, he could secure a lighter sentence for himself.
 At trial, consistent with his evidence on the pre-trial
motion, Mr. Clark testified that he shot Mr. Akindejoye and Mr.
Netzereab. He testified that the appellant was unaware of the
plan, and that he was not present at the scene. He repeated his
explanation that he had lied up until his guilty plea was entered
in order to secure a lighter sentence.
Issues and Law
(1) The trial judge’s delay in providing written reasons for
the mid-trial evidentiary rulings
 This ground of appeal arises out of two mid-trial applications brought by the Crown. One was an application pursuant to
s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, to cross-examine Mr. Clark,
a Crown witness, on his prior inconsistent statements. The other
sought to have Mr. Clark’s prior inconsistent statements admitted
for their truth, pursuant to the principled exception to the rule
against hearsay. The trial judge held a blended s. 9(2)/B. (K.G.)
voir dire to address these issues. While he delivered his bottom-line ruling on the applications orally on July 2, 2014, he did not
deliver written reasons for his ruling on the s. 9(2) application
until August 22, 2016, almost 26 months later. His written reasons
on the mid-trial B. (K.G.) application, followed on September 29,
2016, nearly 27 months after the initial oral ruling.