R. v. H.A.K., 2015 ONCA 905:
 Second, to the extent that the appellant advocates use of the term "corroboration" in the instruction, it is a term long since interred and unworthy of exhumation. See, for example, Vetrovec v. R.,  1 S.C.R. 811, at p. 831.
 Third, in a criminal trial, the Crown has a discretion about whom it will call as witnesses. It is obliged to put forward sufficient witnesses so that the essential elements of the offences charged can adequately be proven. A decision not to call certain witnesses carries the attendant risk of failing to meet the burden of proof imposed on it. But that is for the Crown to decide absent evidence that the discretion is being abused: R. v. Yebes,  2 S.C.R. 168, at pp. 190-91; R. v. Cook,  1 S.C.R. 1113, at paras. 30-31, 54.
 Fourth, at least twice in his instructions on the burden and standard of proof, the trial judge told the jury that a reasonable doubt could arise from an absence of evidence. In his canvass of the position of the defence, the trial judge repeated counsel's submission about the absence of evidence as a source of reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt.
Of the Law Societies of Upper Canada and Nunavut