Where conflicting expert medical evidence is adduced as to the cause of harm, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's act was a significant cause and must exclude other nominated causes as reasonable possibilities. A cause that is merely a 'possibility' but does not rise to a 'reasonable possibility' need not defeat the Crown case. The close temporal association between an assault and resulting harm, combined with the elimination of alternative causes, may be sufficient to sustain a conviction even where individual experts express reservations about causation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.