Introduction to the Law of Evidence

The Basics

Introduction to the Law of Evidence

Law of Evidence

Competence, compellability, relevance

Exclusionary rules

Nature of the Law of Evidence

Objectives

Delgamuuk

Rafferty editorial: Truth or Justice

Judicial Notice – Proof without Evidence

1. What is Judicial Notice

A. Defining Judicial Notice

B. Rule or Exception?

2. When Can Judicial Notice be Taken?

A. Test Governing Judicial Notice

R. v. Find, [2001] SCC “Test for Judicial Notice”

B. Adjudicative versus Non-Adjudicative Facts

Danson v.Ontario(AG), [1990] SCR “Adjudicative vs. Non-adjudicative facts”

C. Social Versus Legislative Facts

Categories of Judicial Notice

Adjudicative Facts

A. Notorious Facts

R v Potts [1982] SCC – “Adjudicative Fact - Local Community”

B. Dispositive versus Non-Dispositive Facts

R v Zundel (No.1) (1987) ONCA – “Adjudicative Facts - despositive”

R v Zundel (No. 2) (1990) ONCA – “Adjudicative Facts – Non-despositive”

C. Immediate and Accurate Demonstration

R v Krymowski [2005] SCC – “Adjudicative Facts – dictionary definitions”

3. Non-Adjudicative Facts

A. Legislative Facts

B. Social Facts

R v Spence, 2005 SCC – “Social Facts - Racism”

C. Examples of Social Facts

R.v. Gladue, [1999] SCR “Systemic or background factors of Aboriginal offenders”

R.v.Ipeelee,2012 SCC “Aboriginal factors”

R.v.Find, [2001] SCR “Judicial Notice of Stigma of offence – nope!”

R. v. Spence, 2005 SCC “Juror challenge for cause - racism”

Evidence: Sources, Objectives, and Trial Context

1. Origin of the Rules of Evidence

A. The Common Law distinction

B. Explaining the Common Law Approach

2. Taxonomy of the Rules of Evidence

A. The Basic Rule

B. Approaching an evidentiary Issue **follow on exam!**

Relevance:

Reasons for Excluding Relevant Evidence

Admissibility and Weight

C. Taxonomy of Rules

3. Sources of the Rules of Evidence

4. The Trial Process

Burdens, Standards and Presumptions

1. Burdens of Proof Generally

A. Burden versus Standard of Proof

I. Burden or Onus of Proof

II. Standard or Quantum of proof

B. Persuasive and Evidential Burden

I. Persuasive Burden

II. Evidential Burden

Conceptual map of burdens

C. Presumptions

Presumption

R.v.Oakes, [1986] SCR “Presumption of trafficking”

Presumptions of Law or Fact

Presumptions with or without basic facts

Mandatory versus non-mandatory Presumptions

Rebuttable versus Non-Rebuttable Presumption

Conceptual map of presumptions

2. Burden and Quantum of Proof in Civil Proceedings

A. Balance of Probabilities

F.H.v.McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41 “Civil = balance of probabilities”

B. Evidential Burdens In Civil Cases

C. Non-Suit Motions

D. Summary Judgments/Trials

4. Burden and Standard of Proof in Criminal Proceedings

A. Directed Verdict of Acquittal

B. Putting a Defence in Issue (“Air of Reality”)

C. Proof beyond a Reasonable doubt

I. Defining the Standard

R v Lifchus [1997] SCC – “Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

COMMENTS:

R v. Starr (SCC, 2000) “Proof beyond a reasonable closer to absolute certainty”

II. Applying the Standard

III. Standards of Proof

Competency, Compellability and the Oath

1. THE OATH

Omychund v Barker(1745) 1 Atk 21; 26 ER 15 – “include other religious oaths”

R. v. Bannerman(1966), 48 C.R. 110 – “child sufficiently understand consequences”

B. The Solemn Affirmation

Canada Evidence Act

R. v. Walsh (1978), 45 C.C.C. (2d) 199 (Ont. C.a.) - “Satanist”

Oath vs Affirmation

C. Unsworn evidence

R. v.Khan[1990] 2 S.C.R. 531 “testimony of children & Oath”

Canada evidence Act

2. Competency

A. Competence of accused

Canada Evidence Act

B. Silence of the Accused

Canada Evidence Act

McConnell and Beer v. R., [1968] S.C.R. 802 – Judge drew attention to accused not testifying

R.v.Noble, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874 – “convicted partly b/c failure to testify”

C. Spousal Competency

Canada Evidence Act

R.v.Salituro [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654 – “spousal incompetency d/n apply where irreconcilably separated”

R.v.Hawkins, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043 – Marriage after evidence given

R.v. Couture, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 517 “Spousal Incompetence & out of court statements”

3. Compellability

A. Method of Compelling Appearance

Subpoena ad testificandum

Subpoena duces tecum

B. Compelling the accused?

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

C. Compelling a Spouse

R. v. McGinty(1986) SCC - “Victim-spouses competent and compellable in domestic abuse”

R.v. Couture, [2007] 2 S.C.R “Presumption that competent witness is compellable witness”

Relevance, Materiality, Prejudice

1. Primary Rule

TEST FOR ANALYZING EVIDENCE

2. Relevance

A. Defining Relevance

Logical Relevance

Fleeing from Scene Example: Logical Relevance in Action

B. Relevance vs Probative Value

C. Contextuality of Relevance

D. Direct versus Circumstantial Evidence

R v Griffin, 2008 SCC 28 – “circumstantial evidence and only rational inference”

R. v. Watson, 1996 (ON CA) – “Habit as circumstantial evidence (carrying gun)”

Twin Myths: R.v.Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme

R v Seaboyer [1991] SCC – “Probative Value & Prejudicial Effect”

2. Materiality

A. The Concept of Materiality

B. Deciding Materiality

C. Sources of Materiality

I. Criminal law: Elements of the Offence

II. Civil Cause of Action

3. Probative Value and Prejudicial Effect

A. Discretion to Exclude

B. Five Kinds of Prejudice (in Rankin’s words)

C. Nature of the Balance: Test for Exclusion

R.v.Seaboyer,[1991] SCC: “Higher threshold to exclude evidence from accused: substantially outweigh”

Character

Character of the Accused

1. The Presumptive Character Rule

A. Policy Rationale for the Exclusion

R v. Rowton (1865), 169 ER 1497 – “character evidence excluded for policy and humanity reasons”

R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908 – “Character evidence creates moral prejudice”

B. The Exceptions and their Rationale

2. Admissibility of Character-Like Evidence

R. v. Watson, 1996 CanLII 4008 (ON CA) “Evidence of habit vs evidence of disposition”

3. Admissibility of Character Evidence (Accused)

A. Where Character is Substantively In Issue

B. Putting Character in Issue

R.v.McNamaraet al. (No.1) (1981) ONCA “Testifying to his own good character”

C. Things that Do NOT Put Character in issue

I. Introductory questions

II. Denial or Repudiation of Allegations

III. Cross-examining a person on Good character

4. The Mechanics of Good Character Evidence

A. Reputation Evidence

R v. Rowton (1865) Le & Ca 520, CCR – “Character Evidence: General Reputation”

R v. Levasseur (1987), 35 CCC (3d) 136 “Character Evidence: Relevant Reputation in Community”

R v. Profit (1992), 11 OR (3d) 98 (CBp.423) “consideration of reputation evidence”

B. Expert Evidence on Specific Disposition

R v. Robertson (1975) 21 C.C.C. (2d) 385 “Expert Evidence on Disposition – unique feature of abnormal group”

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9. “TEST Expert Evidence of Disposition: distinctive behavioural characteristics”

5. Replying to Good Character Evidence

A. The Relationship between the Reply and Good Character Evidence

B. Rebuttal of General Reputation

C. Cross-Examination on Good Acts

D. Section 666 of the Code

Character of Third-Parties/Witnesses

1. The Policy Rationale

2. Character of Non-Accused

3. Third-Party Suspect

R v. McMillan (1975), ONCA – “Methods of Proving Character: Third Party Suspects”

4. Character of Victims

A. Bad Character Known to Accused

R v Scopelliti (1981) ONCA – “Methods of Proving Character: Victims”

B. Bad Character Unknown to Accused

R v Scopelliti (1981) ONCA – “Evidence of Reputation not known to accused”

5. Limits on Third Party Character Attacks

R v Darrach [2000] SCC – “Third Party Character Attacks – Twin Myths”

6. The Consequences of Character Attacks

A. Evidence concerning Psychiatric disposition

R v. McMillan (1975), 23 C.C.C. (2d) 160 “reply evidence of psychiatric disposition”

B. Reply Evidence Concerning an Accused’s Character for Violence

R v. Scopelliti (1981), 63 CCC (2d) 481 “Reply with Accused’s Character for violence”

Similar Fact Evidence

1. The General Rule: “The Exception”

2. Policy Rationale for Similar Fact Evidence (Exception to the Exception)

A. Forms of Disposition

SFE Spectrum

3. EVOLUTION OF SFE RULE

Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57 “Babies in the yard = admissible”

R v Smith, 1915, (11 Cr App R, 229) “Brides in the bath = admissible”

R v. Straffen [1952] 2 QB 911 (CA) “Prisoner escape and kills girl, past girls killed = admissible”

B. Emergence of a Categorical Approach

4. The Contemporary Approach

A. The Principled Approach

Sweitzer v. The Queen, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949 “Principled Approach: Probative vs. Prejudicial”

B. SFE and Credibility

R.v.B. (C.R.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717 – “sexual assault of daughters – SFE to show credibility”

B. SFE and Identity

Sweitzer v. The Queen, [1982] 1 S.C.R: “rapes in Calgary – need evidentiary link to the accused”

R. v. Arp, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339: “SFE to identity require higher threshold of similarity”

C. SFE and the Actus Reus

R. v. Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908 – “Previous sexual assault SFE NOT admissible where possible collusion”

D. The Applicable Test

Test of Admissibility in Handy

Multi-Stage Inquiry

A. Threshold

B. Identifying the issue in question* very important*

C. Connectedness Between Facts Charged and SFE:

D. Prejudicial Effect

E. Overall Balancing

5. Similar Fact Evidence in Civil Cases

Mood Music v. De Wolfe, [1976] Ch. 119 (Eng.) – “lower standard for civil proceedings”

CREDIBILITY

Introduction to Credibility

1. Terminology and Concepts

2. Credibility at Trial

3. Assessing Credibility

A. Demeanour Evidence

R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72– “Wearing Niqab not permitted in criminal process”

B. Credibility of Children

R. v. W. (R.), [1992] SCC: “Credibility of children considered in context, minor inconsistencies ok”

C. Credibility of the Accused

R. v. W.D., [1994] SCC – “Instructions to the jury on absolute confrontations of evidence”

3. Supporting Credibility

A. Expert Evidence of Truthfulness

I. Origins of Rule against Oath-Helping

II. Modern Approach to Oath-Helping

R v Kyselka et al [1962] ONCA – “Limits on Supporting Credibility: Expert Evidence opinions on credibility”

R. v. Béland [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398 – “polygraph = oath-helping”

R v Marquard, [1993] SCC – “Limits on Supporting Credibility: Expert Evidence on credibility of witness”

4. Exceptions to the Oath-Helping Rule

A. Reputation for Veracity

R. v. Clarke, 1998 (ON CA) – “response to attack on credibility: reputation for veracity”

B. Prior Identification

R. v. Toten, 1993 CanLII 3427 (ON CA) “Prior identification”

C. Statements on Arrest

R. v. Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 “Spontaneous exculpatory statements”

5. Prior Consistent Statements

A. Prior Consistent Statements

R. v. Stirling, [2008] 1 S.C.R 272 ”Prior Consistent statements are inadmissible”

B. Exceptions to Rule Against Prior Consistent Statements

1. Rebut allegation of Recent Fabrication

R. v. Ellard, [2009] SCC “Prior consistent statements to rebut accusation of recent fabrication”

2. Narrative Exception

R. v. F.(J.E.), 1993 ONCA “Narrative exception to assist trier of fact to understand what happened”

R v Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 – “Prior Consistent Statements: Narrative cannot be used for confirming truth”

R v. D.(D.) 2000 SCC “Untimely complaint not presumptive adverse inference”

Impeaching Credibility

1. Cross-examination

A. The Duty to Cross-Examine?

Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (U.K. H.L.) – “Must give witness opportunity to explain by cross-x”

R. v. McNeill (2000)OCA - “Rule to cross-x not strictly enforced”

B. Scope of Cross-Examination

R v Lyttle, [2004] SCC – “Foundation for Cross-Examination = Good faith basis”

C. Prior Inconsistent Statements

Canada Evidence Act

Method of Impeachment

2. Other Modes of Impeachment

A. Impeachment By Expert Evidence

Toohey v Metro Police Commissioner [1965] (HL) – “Expert Evidence of Witness’s Testimonial Unreliability”

B. Oath-Attacking Evidence

R v Clarke (1998) (Ont CA) – “Witness’s Bad Reputation for Veracity”

C. Prior Convictions

R. v. St. Pierre (1974) ONCA – “cannot cross-x accused about prior convictions”

Canada Evidence Act – “may question witness on prior convictions”

R. v. Corbett [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670 “Prior convictions are relevant to credibility of accused”

Morris v. The Queen, [1979] 1 SCR 405 – “Include CC convictions, juvy convictions”

R. v. Danson, 1982 (Ont CA) – “doesn’t include conditional or absolute discharges”

R.v.Laurier(1983) ONCA – “No cross-x of accused about the details of a prior offence”

D. Exceptions to the Rule Against Cross-Examination on Prior Convictions

E. Limits on s.12 of the CEA

R v Corbett [1988] SCC – “Discretion to Exclude Previous Convictions”

3. Collateral Fact Bar

A.G. v. Hitchcock (1847), 154 E.R. 38 (Ex. Ch.).- “What is a collateral fact?”

Impeaching Your Own Witnesses and Corroboration

1. Cross-Examination of your own Witness

A. Hostile Witness (your own)

R. v. Coffin(1956), 114 C.C.C. 1

When is a witness Hostile?

B. Adverse Witness

Section 9 of the CEA

Unpacking section 9(1)

What is “Adverse”?

Hostile versus Adverse Witness

2. Prior Inconsistent Statements

A. Prior Inconsistent Statements Generally

B. Prior Statements of Other parties

Section 10 of the CEA

C. Prior Inconsistent Statement of your witness

Section 9(2) of the CEA

R v Milgaard (1971) SKCA – “Procedure to follow under s. 9.2”

D. Evidentiary Value of Prior Inconsistent Statements

4. Corroboration and Unsavory Witnesses

A. Corroboration Generally

DPP v Kilbourne (1973) AC 729 – “Common sense rule of corroboration”

B. Legal Requirement for Corroboration

Treason

Perjury

Procuring a Feigned Marriage

C. Unsavoury Witnesses

R. v. Baskerville, [1916] 2 K.B. 658

Vetrovecv The Queen; Gaja v The Queen [1982] SCC – “Unsavoury Witnesses” – LEADING CASE

R v Khela, 2009 SCC 4 – “Unsavoury Witnesses: Vetrovec Warning”

Hearsay

1. Introduction to Hearsay

2. Identifying Hearsay

A. Defining Hearsay

B. Some Crucial Questions in Identifying Hearsay

1. The Declarant

2. The Recipient

3. Out of Court Statement

IV. Offered for its truth

V. The Hearsay Exceptions

3. Rationale for the Hearsay Rule

A. Modern Rationale

B. The Hearsay Dangers

Why to exclude hearsay evidence

C. Testimonial Factors

4. Statements Offered for Non-hearsay Purposes

A. Statements for Non-hearsay Purposes

B. State of Mind

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, [1956] PC “State of Mind”

C. Timing of Statement

R v Wildman (1981) ONCA – “Non-Hearsay Words – how acquired knowledge of axe”

5. Implied Hearsay/ Hearsay by Conduct

A. The Scope of the Hearsay Rule

B. Implied Hearsay

Wright v Tatham (1837) Exch Ct – “Implied Assertions = Hearsay (letters written to testator)”

R v Wysochan (1930) SKCA – “Implied Assertions – asking for her husband (decided wrong)”

R v Baldree, 2013 SCC – “Implied Hearsay – calling phone to ask for drugs”

C. Hearsay By Conduct

R v McKinnon (1989) ONCA – “Hearsay by Conduct – gestures as communication”

R.v.Baldree, 2013 SCC “Hearsay by conduct - distinction between assertive/non-assertive conduct”

THE PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO HEARSAY

1. Traditional Exceptions

Categorical Exceptions

2. The Principled Approach

A. Origins

Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001 – “modifying hearsay rule excluding evidence”

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608. – “Nurses notes admissible”

B. Hearsay Revolution

R v Khan [1990] SCC – “Principled Approach to Hearsay” – PRECEDENT

C. Consolidation of the Rule

R v Smith [1992] SCC – “Reliability & Necessity (deceased calls to mother)”

D. Extension of the Principled Approach

R v B (KG) [1993] SCC – “Prior Inconsistent Statements – friends say accused admitted to murder”

4. Triumph of the Principled Approach

R v Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57 – “Principled Approach &Threshold Reliability (assault in retirement home)” – LEADING CASE

Khelwon: Identifying Hearsay

Khelwon: Reliability

Khelawon: Revisiting Starr (autopac scam case)

Hearsay Exceptions

1. Principled Approach and Categorical Exceptions

R v Starr [2000] SCC – “Principled Approach & Present Intentions Exception – Autopac Scam”

2. Present Intentions Exception

R. v. Starr [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144 “Present Intentions Exception”

R v P(R) (1990) Ont HCJ – “Statements of Intention [Modified by Starr]”

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon (1892) US – “Statements of Intention”

R v. Wainwright (1875) US – “Statements of Intention”

R. v. Thomson (1912) KB – “Statements of Intention”

3. Prior Judicial Proceedings

715(1) of the Criminal Code

R v Potvin [1989] SCC – “Prior Judicial Proceedings Exception – Opportunity to cross-x”

R.v.Hawkins, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043. “Spousal incompetency”

4. Business Records Exception

A. Common Law Rule

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608 “Business Records Exception (Nurses Notes)”

R. v. Monkhouse, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 725 (Alta. C.A.) “Business Records Exception Rules”

B. Statutory Exception

Section 30(1) CEA

Section 30(1) Requirements

5. Party Admissions

A. What Constitutes an Admission?

I. Definition of an admission

II. Forms of Admissions

B. Rationale for Admissions

R v. Evans, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653

6. Spontaneous Declarations (res gestae)

A. Rationale

Wigmore’s Rationale

B. Transactional Approach

R v Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox CC 341 “Strict application of spontaneous declarations”

C. Functional Approach

Ratten v The Queen [1971] 3 All ER 801 “Spontaneous declarations: Events leading up to incident”

R v Clark (1983) ONCA – “Spontaneous Utterances (ex-wife is murdering me)” – PRECEDENT

7. Dying Declarations

A. Rationale for Exceptions

R. v. Woodcock (1789) 168 E.R. 352 – “Rationale for Dying Declarations – like an Oath”

B. The Rule

Chapdelaine v. The King (1934), [1935] S.C.R. 53 – “The rule of dying declarations”

The Rule Restated

8. Statements Against Penal Interest

A. The Rule

Demeter v. The Queen (1977) ONCA – “Criteria for Statements against Penal Interest”

B. “Against Interest”

R v O’Brien (1978) SCC – “Statements against Interest – apprehension of penal consequences”

C. Inculpatory/Exculpatory

R v Pelletier (1978) ONCA – “Statements against Interest”

D. Statements of the Accused

Lucier v The Queen [1982] 1 SCR 28 – “Statements against Interest” – PRECEDENT

9. Declarations of Physical or Emotional States

Youlden v London Guarantee and Accident Co. (1910) Ont HCJ – “Statements Concerning Mental or Bodily Condition”

Opinion and Expert Evidence

1. The Opinion Evidence Rule

A. What is an Opinion?

Examples of Opinions

B. Facts versus Opinion?

C. The Rule

2. Lay Opinion Exception

A. The Exception(s)

R v Graat [1982] SCC – “Exceptions for Lay Opinion”

B. Ultimate Issue

C. Opinions Concerning Law

3. Expert Opinion Evidence

A. The Expert’s Function

B. Criteria for Expert Evidence

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9 as applied in R. v.Abbey,2009 ONCA 624 [#2] “TEST: Expert Evidence”

I. Preconditions Branch

II. Gate-Keeping Branch

R v Lavallee [1990] SCC – “Applying Mohan Factors”

C. The Limits of Expert Opinion

Novel Science

“Reliable Foundation Test”

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) “Reliable Foundation Test”

R v Trochym, [2007] SCC – “Reliable foundation test & Hypnosis”

Privileges

1. Privileges in General

A. Examples of Privileges

B. Class or Blanket Privilege

C. Case-by-Case Privilege

Case-By-Case Criteria

2. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

A. Principle against Self-Incrimination

B. Evolution of the Privilege

Charter expands upon the common law principle:

C. Sources of the Privilege

D. Statutory Use Immunity (Canada Evidence Act):

Application of s. 5 CEA

3. The Charter and Self-Incrimination

A. Charter Immunity and s. 13

B. Evolution of S. 13

Dubois v The Queen [1985] SCC “Other proceedings=re-trials”

R v Mannion, [1986] SCC “Prior inconsistent statement inadmissible – OVERTURNED”

R v Kuldip, [1990] SCC “Prior inconsistent statement=Impeachment”

R v Noël, [2002] SCC “s. 5 CEA – cannot put prior statement to accused”

R v Henry [2005] SCC – “Section 13 Charter”

R v Nedelcu, 2012 SCC – “Section 13 and Prior Discovery Evidence (overturns Henry?)”

Class Privileges: Solicitor-Client, Litigation & Informers

1. Solicitor-Client Privilege (“SCP”) or Legal Advice Privilege

A. Significance of Solicitor-Client Privilege

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 SCR 860

Integrity of the Legal System as a Whole

B. Requirements of SCP

Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 821 “Requirements of SCP”

Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] SCC – “Requirements for SCP (in-house counsel)”

C. Exceptions to SCP

I. Facilitating a Criminal Purpose

II. Public Safety

Smith v Jones, [1999] SCC – “Public Safety Exception”

III. Innocence at Stake

R v Brown, [2002] SCC “Innocence at Stake Exception”

2. Litigation Privilege

Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] SCC – “Litigation Privilege”

3. Settlement Privilege

4. Informant Privilege

A. Rationale for Informant Privilege

B. Scope of Informant Privilege

C. Recognized Exceptions

Informant Privilege “Exceptions”

R v. Leipert, [1997] SCR “Informer Privilege”

Case by Case Privileges

1. Case by Case Privilege

A. Why Case by Case privileges?

B. Recognition of the Case by Case Privilege

Slavutych v Baker et al, [1976] SCC – “Wigmore Criteria on Privilege”

C. Elaboration of the Case-By-Case Privilege

I. Priest - Penitent

RvGruenke [1991] SCC – “Religious Communications”

II. Psychiatrist-Patient

M (A) v Ryan [1997] SCC – “Psychiatrist & Patient”

III. Journalist-Informant

R v National Post [2010] SCC – “Journalist & Source”

2. Deemed / Implied Undertaking

Jumanv.Doucette, [2008] SCR “Discovery Evidence subject to implied undertaking”

The Basics