EVIDENCEPRINCIPLES AND PROBLEMS

Ninth Edition

by

Ronald Joseph DelisleB.Sc, LL.B., LL.M.Faculty of Law

Queen's University

Don StuartB.A., LL.B., Dip. Crim., D. Phil.

Faculty of LawQueen's University

David M. TanovichB.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Faculty of LawUniversity of Windsor

CARSWELL®

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface to Ninth Edition v

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1. THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM 1(a) Not a Scientific Inquiry 1(b) Truth and Justice: Competing Goals? 2

R. v. Mullins- Johnson 7Lisa Dufraimont, Evidence Law and the Jury 8

(c) Role of Trial Judge 10R. v. Lawes 11

2. LEGALETHICS 14R. v. Felderhof 14R. v. Murray 19Cowles v. Balac 23

3. SOURCES 25R. v. Salituro 26

4. CODIFICATION 28Arguments for a Comprehensive Statement 28Arguments Against a Comprehensive Statement 30

5. APPLICABILITY OF LAWS OF EVIDENCE 31

Chapter 2 BURDENS OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS 39

1. BURDENS OF PROOF 39(a) Terminology 39(b) Allocation of Burdens 41

(i) Civil Cases 41Fontaine v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia 42Peart v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Service 44

(ii) Criminal Cases 49Expediency 50Facts Peculiarly Within Knowledge of Accused 51

(c) Measure of Burden of Persuasion 53(i) Balance of Probabilities Standard for Civil Cases 53

F.H. v. McDougall 53(ii) Reasonable Doubt Standard for Criminal Cases 60

R. v. Lifchus 60R. v. Starr 62

(iii) Choosing Between Competing Versions 63R. v. W. (D.) 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS

R.v.S.(J.K) 64PROBLEM 69

(iv) Considering Individual Pieces of Evidence 70R. v. Morin 70R. v. White 73

(v) Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 75R. v. Munoz 76R. v. Whitman 81R. v. Hanemaayer 85

(vi) Hodge's Case 90R. v. Cooper 91R. v. Tombran 93R. v. Griffin 96

(vii) Preliminary Findings of Facts 96R. v. Evans 96R.v.Arp 97

(d) Measure of Evidential Burden 97(i) Criminal Cases 97

U.S.A. v. Sheppard 98Monteleone v. R 98R. v. Quercia 100R. v. Arcuri 101U.S.A. v. Ferras 104Quebec (Ministere du Revenu) v. Buffolino 108

PROBLEM 110R. v. Cinous I l lR. v. Fontaine 115

(ii) Civil Cases 118Canada (A.G.) v. Lameman 118FL Receivable Trust v. Cobrand Foods Ltd 120Lauferv. Bucklaschuk 122

PROBLEMS 124

2. PRESUMPTIONS 126(a) Introduction 126(b) False Presumptions 127

R. v. Nicholl 129PROBLEMS 133(c) True Presumptions 133(d) Presumption of Innocence and Charter 138

R. v. Oakes 138R. v. Chaulk 145R. v. Downey 148R. v. Laba 149R. v. Curtis 153

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROBLEMS 155

Chapter 3 RELEVANCE AND DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE 157

1. RELEVANCE 157(a) Tests 157

R. v. Watson 157Morrisv. R 159

(b) Materiality 162R. v. Lavallee 163

(c) Multiple Relevance 164(d) Relevance and Social Context 165

R. v. S. (R.D.) 166R. v. Hamilton 176

2. DISCRETION AND LAW OF EVIDENCE 183(a) Introduction 183(b) Discretion to Exclude 184

(i) Reading in 185Corbettv.R 185R. v. Potvin 190

(ii) Balancing Probative Value and Prejudicial Effect 192R. v. Seaboyer 192R. v. Hunter 195Anderson v. Maple Ridge (District) 197

(iii) Assessing Trial Fairness 200R. v. Harrer 200R. v. White 205R. v. Grant 206

PROBLEMS 209

Chapter 4 CHARACTER EVIDENCE AS TEST CASE OFRELEVANCE AND DISCRETION 213

1. HABIT 213Belknap v. Meakes 214R. v. Watson 215Devgan v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (Ontario) 218R. v. B. (L) .' 220

2. CHARACTER 221(a) Admissible as Directly Relevant to Material Issue or As Disposition

(Propensity) 221R. v. W. (L) 222

xii TABLE OF CONTENTS

(b) Underlying Assumptions Grounding Character Evidence 223R. v. Clarke 223

(c) Character of Parties in Civil Cases 224Rawdah v. Evans 225Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Service 226

(d) Character of Accused in Criminal Cases 228(i) Good Character Evidence 228

R. v. Profit (Ont. C.A.) 229R.v. Profit (S.C.C.) 231

(ii) When B ad Character Evidence Can be Led by Crown 231(iii) When Does Accused Put Their Character in Issue? 232

R. v. P. (N.A.) 234R. v. A. (W.A.) 236

(iv) How Character May be Proved 237R. v. Levasseur 238R. v. Brown 240

(v) Warnings to Jury 242PROBLEMS 242(e) Similar Facts 243

(i) Need for Connection Between Previous Acts and Accused 247Sweitzerv.R 247R. v. Millar 249

(ii) How are Similar Facts Relevant? 251R. v. B. (C.R.) 251R. v.Arp 256R. v. Handy 261R. v. Blake 274R. v. Titmus 275R. v. Shearing 276R. v. Perrier 281

PROBLEMS 285(iii) Civil Cases 286

Johnson v. Bugera 286S. (R.C.M.) v. K. (G.M.) 289

PROBLEMS 291(f) Character of Third Party/Co-Accused 292

R. v. Khan 293(g) Character of Victim 296

(i) Self-defence 297R. v. Scopelliti 297

(ii) Sexual Assault 298Common Law 300Charter of Rights 303

R. v. Seaboyer 303New Legislation - Bill C-49 318

R. v. Crosby 320

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii

R. v. Darrach 323R. v. Temertzoglou 329R. v. A. (No. 2) 332

Michelle Anderson, Time to Reform Rape Shield Laws .. 335PROBLEMS 343

MECHANICS OF PROOF 345

A. Matters Not Requiring Proof 345

1. FORMAL ADMISSIONS OF FACT 345

Castellani v. R 345R. v. Proctor 347R. v. Baksh 351

2. JUDICIAL NOTICE 353(a) Introduction 353(b) Disputed Boundaries of Judicial Notice 354

Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon 360R. v. Lavallee 362R. v. Malott 365Mogev. Moge 368Cronkv. Canadian General Insurance Co 372

(c) Spence: Revised Standards 376R. v. Spence 376CTV Television v. The Queen 384

PROBLEMS 386(d) Judicial Notice of Law 387

R. v. Smith 389

B. Real Evidence 393

1. AUTHENTICATION 391R. v. Patterson 393R. v. MacPherson 393

PROBLEMS 394

2. PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOTAPES 395R. v. Schaffner 396R. v. Nikolovski 398

PROBLEMS 401

3. DOCUMENTS 402

4. BEST EVIDENCE RULE 404

xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS

R. v. Cotroni 405R. v. Morgan 407

5. ABORIGINAL RIGHTS 409Delgamuukw v. British Columbia 409Mitchell v. Canada (M.N.R.) 411

6. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE 412R. v. Howard and Trudel 413R. v. Macdonald 414McCutcheon v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. 419R. v. Collins 423

7. VIEWS 424

C. Witnesses 426

1. COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY 426

(a) Introduction 426(b) Oath 426

R. v. Kalever 428R. v. Wiebe 430

(c) Age 432R. v. W. (R.) 433Ontario Evidence Act 436Nick Bala et al, Bill C-2: A New Law for Canada's ChildWitnesses 437R. v. Levogiannis 447

(d) Mental Capacity 449Canada Evidence Act, s. 16 450R. v. Parrott 451R. v. Farley 454

(e) Interest 455Evidence Acts 457

(f) Spousal Competence and Compellability 458(i) The General Rule 458

R. v. Couture 458(ii) The Common Law Exception 461

R. v. McGinty 462R. v. Moore 464

(iii) Who Is a Spouse? 466R. v. Salituro 467R. v. Hawkins 470R. v. Martin 472

(iv) Reform 475R. v. Couture 476

TABLE OF CONTENTS xv

(g) Compellability of Accused 478(i) History of Privilege Against Self-incrimination 478(ii) Canada Evidence Act 479(iii) Sections ll(c)and 13 of Charter 481

PROBLEMS 483Knutson v. Registered Nurses Assn. (Sask.) 484

(iv) Pre-trial Right to Silence: Charter, s. 7 484Hebert 484

(v) Principle Against Self-incrimination: Charter, s. 7 488(vi) No Adverse Inference from Pre-trial Silence 491

R. v. Turcotte 491(vii) No Adverse Inference from Trial Silence 497

R. v. Noble 498(viii) Comments on Accused's Failure to Testify 508

R. v. Miller 510PROBLEMS 512

(ix) Reform 513(h) Compellability of Corporate Officers 515

R. v. Amway Corp 515

2. MANNER OF QUESTIONING 517(a) Leading Questions 517

R. v. Rose 520(b) Refreshing Memory/Past Recollection Recorded 524

R. v. Wilks 524R. v. B. (K.G.) 530R. v. Mattis 531

PROBLEMS 534(c) Videotaped Statements by Children 535

R. v. L. (D.O.) 535R. v. F. (C.C.) 536

(d) Adoption 540R. v. McCarroll 540

(e) Cross-examination 542R. v. Lyttle 544R. v. R. (A.J.) 547

(0 Duty to Cross-examine (Rule in Browne v. Dunn) 552R. v. McNeill 552

(g) Collateral Facts Rule 556A.G. v. Hitchcock 557R. v. Krause 558R. v. Cassibo 560

PROBLEMS 561(h) Examination by Court and Order of Witnesses 562

Cook 563R. v. P. (T.L) 565

xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. IMPEACHMENT 565(a) Prior Inconsistent Statements 566

Canada Evidence Act, ss. 10, 11 567(i) Impeaching One's Own Witness 568

Anderson v. Flying Saucer Driver - In Ltd. 569(ii) Canada Evidence Act, s. 9(1) 571

R. v. Vivar 571R. v. Malik 574

(iii) Canada Evidence Act, s. 9(2) 576PROBLEM 578(b) Bias 579

R. v. Ghorvei 580(i) Motives of Accused and Complainants 583

R. v. Jackson 583R. v. Ellard 583R. v. B. (L.) 585

(c) Character of Witness 586(i) Extrinsic Evidence 586

R. v. Clarke 589(ii) Evidence Elicited on Cross-examination 591(iii) Accused as Witness 592

R. v. Jones 593Canada Evidence Act, s. 12 595R. v. McFadyen 599Hutton v. Way 600R. v. Underwood 602

(d) Defects in Capacity of Witness 604

4. SUPPORTING CREDIBILITY 606(a) General Rule Prohibiting 606

R. c. Beland 607(b) Exceptions 614

(i) To Rebut Allegation of Recent Fabrication 614R. v. Stirling 614R. v. Ellard 617

(ii) Prior Identification 618R. v. Tat 619

(iii) Part of Narrative 620R. c. Dinardo 620R. v. Curto 622

(iv) Recent Complaint 624R. v. O'Connor 625

5. DEMEANOUR AS GUIDE TO CREDIBILITY 628R. v. Norman 629

TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii

PROBLEMS 631

6. CORROBORATION 633(a) When Required? 633

(i) Treason 634(ii) Forgery 634(iii) Accomplices 635

Vetrovec v. R 635R. v. Khela 638

(iv) Informers 642R. v. Brooks 642

(v) Primary Witnesses in Sex Cases 646R. v. S. (F.) 648

(vi) Unsworn Evidence of Children 648R. v. S. (W.) 649R. v. G. (A.) 651

(vii) Miscellaneous Provisions 653(b) What is Corroboration? 653

R. v. B. (G.) 654

Chapter 6 EXCLUSIONARY RULES 657

A. Character 657

B. Hearsay 657

1. THE RULE 657

(a) History 657(b) Reason for Rule 661(c) Identifying Hearsay 662

R. v. Khelawon 665R. v. Evans 668R. v. Tat 671R. v. Starr 674

PROBLEMS 675(d) Approaches to Hearsay 677

R. v. Khan 680R. v. Smith 685R. v. Kharsekin 690R. v. Cassidy 691R. v. B. (KG.) 693R. v. U. (F.J.) 700R. v. Chappell 703R. v. Khelawon 706R. v. Blackman 718

xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS

R. v. Devine 720(e) Establishing Necessity 723

R. v. Parrott 723Dodge v. Kaneff Homes Inc 729

2. EXCEPTIONS 731(a) Admissions 732

(i) Generally 732R. v. Phillips 734R. v. Streu 737

(ii) Confessions 740(iii) Statements Adopted by Party's Conduct 740(iv) Statements Authorized by Party 742

R. v. Strand Electric Ltd. 742(v) Statements of Person with Common Purpose 746

R. v. Mapara 747(vi) Statements by Representative 753(vii) Statements by those in Privity with Estate or Interest

with Party 754(b) Exceptions where Declarant or Testimony Unavailable (Have

Necessity Requirement) 754(i) Declarations Against Interest 754

R. v. Demeter 755R. v. Lucier 757R. v. Kimberley 758

(ii) Dying Declarations 761(iii) Declarations in Course of Duty 763

General 763Business Records 764

R. v. Martin 766R. v. L.(C) 769R. v. Larsen 772

(iv) Former Testimony 774R. v. Potvin 775

PROBLEM 779(c) Exceptions Not Dependent on Availability of Declarant (Have No

Necessity Requirement) 780(i) Declarations as to Physical Sensation 780(ii) Declarations as to Mental or Emotional State 780

R. vP. (R.) 783R.v.Starr . . 785

PROBLEM 788(iii) Spontaneous Statements (Excited Utterances) 789

R. v. Bedingfield 789R. v. Clark 790

TABLE OF CONTENTS xix

C. Voluntary Confession Rule 797

1. COMMON LAW PRE-OICKLE 797R. v. Wray 801R. v. Sweeney 803R. v. Hodgson 804

2. REVISED APPROACH IN R. v. OICKLE 812R.vOickle 812

3. THE PRE-TRIAL RIGHT TO SILENCE AND INTERROGATION.... 825R. v. Osmar 825R. v. Singh 829

PROBLEMS 839

4. VIDEOTAPING OF INTERROGATIONS 842R. v. Moore-McFarlane 842R. v. Wilson 845

5. MIXED INCULPATORY AND EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS .... 848

R. v. Rojas 849

D. Opinion Evidence and Experts 850

1. OPINION RULE 850Graatv. R 854

2. EXPERT EVIDENCE 858(a) Tests 859

R. v. Mohan 859R. v. J. (J.L) 865R. v. Trochym 867R. v. Abbey 879

(b) Examples 893R. v. Terceira 893R. v. Mclntosh 897R. v. Olscamp 901R. v. Marquard 903R. v. D. (D.) 906R. v. Talbot 913R. v. G.(P.) 917R. v. Dimitrov 919R. v. Klymchuk 920R. v. Osmar 921

xx TABLE OF CONTENTS

R. v. Melaragni 925Nassiah v. Peel Regional Police Services Board 926

3. ULTIMATE ISSUE RULE 929R. v. Bryan 931

4. EXPERT OPINION BASED ON HEARSAY 932R. v. Jordan 933R. v. Lavallee 935R. v. Worrall 943Mizzi v. Debartok 944

5. EXAMINING EXPERT 945(a) Hypothetical Questions 945(b) Use of Textbooks 946

R. v. Marquard 946

6. APPOINTMENT OF COURT EXPERTS 949

7. EXCHANGE OF EXPERTS'REPORTS 952

E. Privilege 955

1. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS 955

(a) Introduction 955R. v. Gruenke 955

(b) Solicitor-Client Privilege 959(i) Generally 959

Descoteaux v. Mierzwinski 961Canada (Privacy Commission) v. Blood Tribe Department ofHealth 967Goodis v. Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services).... 969Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice) 970

(ii) Exceptions 977Airstv. Airst 977Smith v. Jones 980R. v. McClure 986R. v. Shirose and Campbell 991Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) 993

(c) Marital Communications 996R. v. Zylstra 1000

(d) Privilege for Without Prejudice Communications 1002Middelkamp v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board 1002R. v. Pabani 1005R. v. Lake 1007

TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi

2. PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY 1009(a) Statutory Provisions 1009

(i) Section 38 - International Relations, National Defence or NationalSecurity 1010

Canada (A.G.)v. Ribic 1010(ii) Section 39 - Confidential Cabinet Materials 1021

Babcockv. Canada (Attorney General) 1021(b) Identity of Informers 1030

R. v. Leipert 1030Named Person v. Vancouver Sun 1037

3. CASE-BY-CASE PRIVILEGE 1042

4. BALANCING CHARTER VALUES 1044R. v. Mills 1047R. v. Shearing 1060R. v. McNeil 1071M. (A.) v. Ryan 1071

Table of Cases 1079Index 1109