R. v. Wilson, 2013 ONCA 222, in dismissing an appeal, holds:
 In the course of explaining reasonable doubt to the jury, the trial judge said:
The presumption of innocence means that Mr. Wilson started the trial with a clean slate. The presumption stays with him throughout the case, including your deliberations at the end of the trial. It is only defeated if and when Crown counsel satisfied you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Guilty, I’m sorry, Mr. Wilson is guilty of the crime charged. Mr. Wilson does not have to present evidence or prove anything in this case. In particular, that he is innocent of the crime charged. From start to finish, it is Crown counsel who must prove the person charged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is Crown counsel who must prove Mr. Wilson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and not Mr. Wilson who must prove his innocence. You must find Mr. Wilson not guilty of an offence unless Crown counsel satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of it. [Emphasis added.]
 Nothing was said about the trial judge’s obvious slip of the tongue until after the appellant’s conviction when the appellant moved for a mistrial based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias. The trial judge dismissed the application and explained how she came to make the misstatement.
 On appeal, counsel submits that there was a “powerful risk” that the jury would take the comment as an indication of the trial judge’s personal view of the merits of the case.
 We see no merit to this submission. The jury, as reasonable intelligent people, would take the comment for what it clearly was – an inadvertent misstatement quickly corrected, probably before it was even noticed. To suggest that the jury would take some expression of the trial judge’s personal opinion of the merits of the case from an obvious slip of the tongue is not only to speculate, but also to assume a degree of irresponsibility and irrationality incompatible with the important function of the jury in the criminal justice process.