Does the defence of accident have an air of reality?

These defences are different defences than the defence of accident, although arising from similar evidence, and depending upon the inferences drawn from that evidence by the jury. As we read the decision of the majority in R v. Esau, supra, the accused is entitled to have the defences put to the jury, and where a defence that has an air of reality to it on the evidence has not been put to the jury the curative provisions of subsection 686(1)(b) of the Code do not apply and a new trial must be held.