Sopinka J.
Sopinka J. ‑‑ We agree with the reasons of Rowles J.A., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, that the charge to the jury was erroneous. In the circumstances of this case it was incumbent on the trial judge not only to instruct the jury that evidence on one count was not to be used on other counts but further to warn about the dangers of the potential influence of evidence of numerous alleged criminal acts which were not the subject of a particular count. The charge was inadequate in this respect. These omissions were exacerbated by the invitation to the jury to consider the address of counsel for the Crown. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the additional ground on which leave to appeal was granted.
The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the convictions are set aside and a new trial is ordered.