Sopinka J.
Sopinka J. -- The appellant appeals from his conviction for fraud on two grounds:
(1) that the Crown improperly split its case; and
(2) that the Crown was permitted to call reply evidence in breach of the collateral fact rule.
I agree with the appellant that the appeal must be allowed on the second ground for the reasons of Doherty J.A. dissenting in the Court of Appeal (1996), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 160.
Since in the circumstances a new trial must be held, it is unnecessary to deal with the first ground.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgments at trial and of the Court of Appeal for Ontario are set aside and a new trial is ordered.
Cases cited
- 104 C.C.C. (3d) 160 104 C.C.C. (3d) 160 ¶ 2