R v Tingle, 2018 ONSC 7109 (Campbell):

[11] In my view, a verdict reached by a jury, in earlier, separate criminal trial proceedings against the alleged principal offender is not admissible in evidence in subsequent criminal trial proceedings against other alleged parties to the crime.
.
.
[24] This logic also finds expression in the Canadian judicial authorities following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Remilliard. For example, in R. v. Martin, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the admissibility of the acquittal of a Crown witness who had earlier been charged and tried for the same murder now alleged against the accused. The evidence of the earlier acquittal had been admitted into evidence by the trial judge. In setting aside the conviction of the accused, and ordering a new trial, Lacourciere J.A., delivering the judgment of the court, drew the following conclusions regarding the admissibility of the earlier verdict, at pp. 432-433:
“On the question of admissibility of this evidence it is clear and, indeed, fairly
conceded by [the Crown], that the evidence of Comeau’s acquittal was not
conclusive or even probative of his innocence or guilt and, at the appellant’s trial,
was inadmissible to prove this issue, and irrelevant thereto because it merely
represented the opinion of another criminal court.” [Emphasis added]
.
.
[26] In seeking to support the admissibility of the evidence of the jury verdict reached in the earlier trial proceedings against Mr. Hayles-Wilson, defence counsel relied heavily upon the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario in R. v. Caesar, 2016 ONCA 599. The issue in that case, however, was quite different. The Court of Appeal in Caesar was not concerned about the admissibility of a jury verdict reached in an earlier, separate criminal trial, but rather with the admissibility of a plea of guilty by another accused, in a case where both accused were originally jointly charged with the same offence of importing cocaine. The Court accepted that the plea of guilty by the co-accused was admissible in order to show that the co-accused had taken responsibility for importing some of the cocaine, and that it was not the accused who was wholly responsible for the commission of the entire alleged offence. See also R. v. Berry, 2017 ONCA 17, at para. 35, leave denied, 2017 CarswellOnt 13984 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tsekouras, 2017 ONCA 290, at paras. 176-179, leave denied, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 225; E.G. Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada, vol. 1, at s. 14:2182. The decision in Caesar does not, however, provide any support for the admissibility of the jury verdict reached in relation to the earlier, separate trial of Mr. Hayles-Wilson.