R. v. Tomlinson, 2014 ONCA 158:
 The principles that govern the defence of alibi are uncontroversial. A brief reference to some of their features is sufficient for our purposes.
 First, the Latin word "alibi" means "elsewhere". When used in the context of criminal prosecution, an alibi is a claim that a person, usually a person charged with a crime, was elsewhere when the allegedly criminal conduct took place and thus it was impossible for him or her to have committed it: R. v. Hill(1995), 102 C.C.C. (3d) 469 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 478; and R. v. Wright, 2009 ONCA 623, 98 O.R. (3d) 665, at para. 19.
 Second, to constitute an alibi the supportive evidence must be dispositiveof the final issue of guilt or innocence of the accused: Hill, at pp. 478-479; R. v. Sgambelluri and Sgambelluri Ltd. (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 496 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 500; and R. v. R.(M.) (2005), 195 C.C.C. (3d) 26 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 31.
 Third, alibi, as with any defence, justification or excuse advanced at trial, is subject to the air of reality test or standard described in R. v. Cinous,  2 S.C.R. 3: there must be some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could acquit, if the jury believe the evidence to be true.
 Fourth, a trial judge is under no obligation to use the term "alibi" in jury instructions on the defence, provided that, when read as a whole, the instructions apprise the jury of the legal effect of the supportive evidence.
 Finally, instructions on alibi must relate reasonable doubt to the evidence adduced in support of the alibi. The instructions on alibi should make it clear:
i. that there is no onus on the accused to prove an alibi;
ii. that if the jury believes the alibi evidence, they must find the accused not guilty;
iii. that even if the jury does not believe the alibi evidence, if they are left in a reasonable doubt by it, they must find the accused not guilty; and
iv. that even if the alibi evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt about an accused's guilt, the jury must determine, on the basis of all the evidence, whether Crown counsel has proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
See, R. v. Parrington (1985), 20 C.C.C. (3d) 184 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 187; and R. v. O'Connor (2002), 170 C.C.C. (3d) 365 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 34.