During a trial for attempted murder and aggravated assault, the accused testified and provided an alibi involving a visit to his doctor's office on the morning of the stabbing.
The Crown applied to call reply evidence to rebut this testimony.
The accused objected, arguing it amounted to the Crown splitting its case and that the doctor's visit was a collateral fact.
The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the accused's whereabouts prior to the stabbing related to an integral and essential issue, and the Crown could not have reasonably anticipated the specific alibi evidence.
