R. v. Hurd, 2014 ONCA 554:
 Crown prosecutors are advocates who are expected to act rigorously but fairly, persuasively but responsibly. A criminal prosecution takes place within the parameters of an adversarial system. As Moldaver J.A. emphasized in Clark, at para. 126, a murder prosecution is not a tea party: "both sides [are] entitled to press their case and put their best foot forward."
 On the other hand, as noted by this court in R. v. Henderson (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 628 (C.A.), at p. 638, Crown counsels' role is unique given their role as "ministers of justice". Rand J. described the role, as far back as 1954, in R. v. Boucher,  S.C.R. 16, at pp. 23-24:
It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.
 While these principles are easy to state, Crown counsel's dual role presents a certain tension and the application of the principles sometimes proves challenging. Nonetheless, Crown counsel must never part company with fairness and integrity. The fundamental question to be answered in each case is: has the accused been deprived of a fair trial?