In his rulings, the trial judge held that the Crown would be
permitted to cross-examine Mr. Clark on his video-taped statement
to police, his preliminary inquiry testimony, the agreed statement of
facts on his guilty plea, and his pre-trial motion testimony. He also
held that Mr. Clark’s preliminary inquiry testimony and pre-trial
motion testimony would be admissible for their truth. He dismissed
the Crown’s B. (K.G.) application in respect of Mr. Clark’s video-taped statement and the agreed statement of facts.
 The appellant advances two arguments in relation to this
ground of appeal. First, he contends that the trial judge’s delay in
providing his written reasons for ruling on the s. 9(2) and B.
(K.G.) application rebutted the presumption of integrity in those
reasons: R v. Cunningham (2011), 106 O.R. (3d) 641,  O.J.
No. 3546, 2011 ONCA 543, at paras. 33-34. As a result, the trial
judge’s reasons should be disregarded. Second, if successful on
this first argument, the appellant contends that the trial judge
erred in law by failing to provide reasons, since the duty of procedural fairness required reasons to be given in these circumstances. He submits that because the s. 9(2) and B. (K.G.) rulings were
crucial to the Crown’s case, the appellant was entitled to know
why the trial judge ruled in the manner that he did: R. v. Brooks,
 O.J. No. 3451, 2018 ONCA 587, 363 C.C.C. (3d) 85.
(a) The effect of the delay in the release of written reasons
for the rulings
 The respondent concedes that the trial judge’s delay in
providing his reasons undermined the integrity of those reasons,
and that they should not be relied upon in this court. I have accordingly not considered them: R. v. Headley,  O.J. No.
5970, 2018 ONCA 915, 368 C.C.C. (3d) 308, at para. 16.
(b) The duty to give reasons for an evidentiary ruling
 This court recently summarized the law regarding a trial
judge’s duty to provide reasons for an evidentiary ruling. In R. v.
Tsekouras,  O.J. No. 1768, 2017 ONCA 290, 353 C.C.C. (3d)
349, leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed  S.C.C.A. No. 225,
this court stated, at para. 156:
Subject to a duty of procedural fairness, there is no general duty to provide
reasons for an evidentiary ruling. The failure to give reasons of an eviden-
tiary ruling is not fatal provided that the decision is supportable on the
evidence or the basis for the decision is apparent from the circumstances. The
importance of the subject-matter of the ruling also has a bearing on whether
procedural fairness compels reasons: see R. v. Woodard, 2009 MBCA 42, 245
C.C.C. (3d) 522, at paras. 22, 24-25.