LAWG 200 Security Practice and Canadian Legal System Module 2 PDF

LAWG 200: Security Practice and the Canadian Legal System Module 2: The Law of Evidence by SAIT School of Business Introduction Sources of Law Purpose of Rules Common law, legislation, and To ensure fairness, constitutional law. consistency, and...

LAWG 200: Security Practice and the Canadian Legal System Module 2: The Law of Evidence by SAIT School of Business Introduction Sources of Law Purpose of Rules Common law, legislation, and To ensure fairness, constitutional law. consistency, and predictability in the justice system. Terms and Definitions Key Concepts Understanding key Proof, presumptions, and terminology, like evidence, inferences. admissibility, and weight. Sources of Law Criminal Code of Charter of Rights Canada Evidence Act Common Law Canada and Freedoms Federal legislation Body of law developed Federal legislation that Part of the Constitution Act, governing the admissibility through judicial decisions outlines criminal offenses 1982, guaranteeing and weight of evidence in over time. and their penalties. fundamental rights and court. freedoms. Evidence in the Criminal Code of Canada: A Comprehensive Overview Here we briefly examine the role of evidence in the Criminal Code of Canada. The Mohan Test: Cornerstone of Expert Evidence Admissibility 1 Relevance 2 Necessity The evidence must be It must assist the trier of relevant to the case at fact in understanding hand. complex issues. 3 No Exclusionary Rule 4 Qualified Expert The evidence must not be The witness must be subject to any exclusionary properly qualified as an rule. expert in their field. Two-Step Process for Expert Evidence Admissibility Step 1: Preconditions Assessment Evaluate if the evidence meets the four Mohan criteria. Step 2: Gatekeeper Analysis Weigh the potential benefits against possible harm of admitting the evidence. Judicial Decision Based on the analysis, the judge decides whether to admit the expert evidence. Fresh Evidence on Appeal: Section 683 Interests of Justice Discretionary Power The Criminal Code allows for Courts have discretion in the admission of fresh determining what constitutes evidence on appeal if it the 'interests of justice' in serves the interests of each case. justice. Balancing Act Judges must balance the need for finality in proceedings with the pursuit of justice. Liberal Approach to Evidence in Constitutional Cases Extrinsic Evidence Charter Challenges Courts often admit legislative A more permissive approach is history and social science taken when dealing with cases research to provide context in involving potential violations of the constitutional challenges. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Admissibility Threshold in Constitutional Case Evidence must be "not inherently unreliable or offending against public policy." 1 Public Policy 2 Reliability 3 Relevance This lower threshold allows for a more comprehensive examination of constitutional issues, ensuring that courts have access to a wide range of relevant information when making decisions that could impact fundamental rights and freedoms. Establishing Harm for Criminal Prohibitions Reasoned Apprehension of Harm 1 Sufficient to justify criminal prohibitions Contextual Evidence 2 Social and scientific research considered Definitive Scientific Proof 3 Not required for justification This approach allows for a more flexible and responsive legal system, capable of addressing potential harms before they become widespread or irreversible. Specific Evidentiary Provisions in the Criminal Code Offense-Specific Rules The Criminal Code contains tailored evidentiary provisions for particular offenses. Balancing Interests These provisions aim to balance the rights of the accused with the pursuit of justice. Polygamy Example Specific guidelines exist for evidence related to polygamy cases. These specialized provisions reflect the complex nature of certain crimes and the need for carefully calibrated evidentiary standards to ensure fair trials while protecting societal interests. Constitutional Protections in Canadian Evidence Law The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms safeguards crucial rights in legal proceedings. This presentation explores key sections and their impact on evidence collection and admissibility. Key Charter Sections Section 7 Section 8 Right to life, liberty and security of the person Protection against unreasonable search and seizure Section 10(b) Section 11(c) Right to counsel upon arrest or detention Right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself Exclusion of Evidence: Section 24(2) 1 Exclusion Decision 2 Charter-infringing State Conduct 3 Impact on Charter-protected Interests 4 Society's Interest in Adjudication Courts can exclude evidence obtained through Charter violations. The test for exclusion, as outlined in R. v. Grant, considers these factors. Right to Silence: Section 7 Protection Interaction with Section 10(b) The right to silence is protected under Section 7 of the This right operates in conjunction with the right to Charter. It ensures suspects can make informed choices counsel under Section 10(b). Together, they safeguard an about speaking to police. individual's choices during police interactions. Search and Seizure: Section 8 Protection Reasonableness Section 8 guards against Courts determine if a search unreasonable search and was reasonable based on seizure, a crucial privacy specific circumstances. safeguard. Exclusion Evidence from unreasonable searches may be excluded under Section 24(2). Right to Counsel: Section 10(b) 1 Arrest or Detention The right to counsel is triggered immediately upon arrest or detention. 2 Informing the Individual Authorities must inform the individual of their right to counsel without delay. 3 Access to Counsel The individual must be given the opportunity to retain and instruct counsel. 4 Potential Exclusion Violation of this right may lead to exclusion of evidence obtained as a result. Admissibility and Charter Breaches Charter Breach A violation of Charter rights must occur. Connection There must be a link between the breach and evidence obtained. Evaluation Courts assess the impact of admitting the evidence. Decision Evidence may be excluded if it would bring administration of justice into disrepute. Balancing Rights and Interests Weighing Factors Courts balance Charter rights with societal interests in case adjudication. Case-by-Case Basis Each situation is evaluated individually, considering unique circumstances. Charter Protections The Charter provides significant protections in criminal proceedings. Impact on Evidence Collection Awareness 1 Law enforcement must be aware of Charter rights. Compliance 2 Evidence collection procedures must comply with Charter provisions. Documentation 3 Proper documentation of evidence collection is crucial. Review 4 Regular review and training on Charter compliance is necessary. Judicial Interpretation Evolving Landscape 1982 Charter Enacted The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, revolutionizing evidence law. 24 Key Section Section 24(2) empowers courts to exclude evidence from Charter violations. 2009 Grant Decision R. v. Grant established the current test for evidence exclusion. Conclusion: Protecting Rights and Justice Robust Protections Balanced Approach The Charter provides strong Courts carefully weigh safeguards for individual Charter rights against rights in legal proceedings. societal interests in each case. Ongoing Evolution Canadian evidence law continues to develop through judicial interpretation and application. Evidence Under the Canada Evidence Act Welcome to this comprehensive overview of evidence under the Canada Evidence Act (CEA). This federal statute governs the rules of evidence in Canadian courts, playing a crucial role in our legal system. Throughout this presentation, we'll explore key aspects of the CEA, its interaction with common law, and its impact on various types of evidence. Admissibility of Electronic Documents 1 Authentication 2 Burden of Proof Requirement The party seeking to admit Section 31.1 of the CEA an electronic document has addresses the authentication the burden of proving its of electronic documents, authenticity. including video recordings and digital data. 3 Evidence Standard 4 Low Threshold Authentication requires The standard for evidence capable of authentication is relatively supporting a finding that the low, requiring only some electronic document is what evidence of authenticity. it purports to be. Public Documents Admissibility Criteria Importance in Legal Proceedings Section 23 of the CEA provides for the Public documents play a crucial role in admissibility of public documents under many legal proceedings, offering a specific conditions. To be admissible as a reliable source of information that is public document, it must meet the presumed to be accurate and authentic. following Made by acriteria: public official in the discharge of a public duty This provision in the CEA streamlines the process of admitting official records into evidence, reducing the need for lengthy Intended as a permanent record authentication procedures for widely recognized public documents. Available for public inspection Expert Evidence Judicial Gatekeeping 1 Courts have a crucial role in determining admissibility Statutory Criteria 2 CEA provides specific guidelines for expert evidence Common Law Principles 3 Incorporates established legal precedents Relevance and Necessity 4 Expert evidence must be relevant and necessary Properly Qualified Expert 5 Expert must have recognized qualifications The CEA works in conjunction with common law principles to ensure that expert evidence is both reliable and helpful to the court. This multi-layered approach helps maintain the integrity of expert testimony in Canadian legal proceedings. Hearsay Evidence CEA and Hearsay While the CEA doesn't directly address hearsay, it interacts with common law rules on hearsay exceptions. Document Admissibility Documents may be admissible under specific exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as the public documents exception. Balancing Act Courts must balance the need for reliable evidence with the traditional exclusion of hearsay. Evolving Interpretations The interaction between the CEA and hearsay rules continues to evolve through case law and legal interpretation. Best Evidence Rule Modified Rule for Electronic Documents Flexibility in Modern Era The CEA modifies the common law "best evidence" rule for This modification recognizes the prevalence of electronic electronic documents, allowing for the admission of electronic documents in modern society and legal proceedings, providing copies under certain conditions. a more flexible approach to evidence admission. Authentication Still Required Judicial Discretion While allowing electronic copies, the CEA still requires proper Judges retain the discretion to assess the weight given to authentication to ensure the integrity and reliability of the electronic copies, considering factors such as reliability and the evidence presented. circumstances of document creation and storage. Witness Testimony 1 Witness Competency The CEA contains provisions related to witness competency, determining who is legally able to testify in court. 2 Compellability The Act also addresses witness compellability, outlining circumstances under which individuals can be required to testify. 3 Oath or Affirmation Witnesses must typically testify under oath or affirmation, as specified in the CEA, to ensure truthfulness. 4 Cross-Examination The Act supports the right to cross-examine witnesses, a crucial aspect of the adversarial legal system. Judicial Notice Section 17 Provision Efficiency in Proceedings Section 17 of the CEA allows courts to This provision enhances judicial efficiency take judicial notice of certain facts by eliminating the need to prove widely without formal proof. known or easily verifiable facts. Scope of Application Judicial Discretion Judicial notice typically applies to Judges must use discretion in applying indisputable facts, such as laws, judicial notice to maintain fairness and government regulations, or widely prevent undue influence on proceedings. accepted scientific principles. Relationship with Common Law CEA Coexistence 1 The CEA does not replace all common law rules of evidence. Section 31.7 Specification 2 This section clarifies the Act's relationship with existing legal principles. Limited Scope 3 The Act primarily affects rules relating to authentication and best evidence. Common Law Continuity 4 Many traditional evidence rules remain in effect alongside the CEA. This balanced approach ensures that the CEA enhances rather than disrupts the existing legal framework, providing clarity in specific areas while maintaining the flexibility of common law principles. Discretionary Powers of Judges Judicial Authority Considerations for Exclusion Judges retain discretionary powers to exclude evidence, Potential prejudicial effect of evidence even if it meets the technical requirements for Limited probative value admissibility under the CEA. This authority allows for a Fairness to all parties involved nuanced approach to evidence admission, considering Overall integrity of the legal process factors beyond mere technical compliance. Practical Implications of the CEA Modernized Evidence Enhanced Scrutiny of Streamlined Admission of Presentation Expert Testimony Public Documents The CEA's provisions on electronic The Act's approach to expert evidence The CEA's provisions on public documents have revolutionized how ensures that only reliable and documents have simplified the evidence is presented in court, necessary expert testimony is process of admitting official records, allowing for more efficient and admitted, improving the quality of reducing time and resources spent on comprehensive presentations. information presented to the court. authentication procedures. Conclusion: The CEA's Role in Canadian Justice Balanced Framework Modernization of Legal Processes The Canada Evidence Act provides a comprehensive yet It adapts traditional evidence flexible framework for evidence rules to modern realities, admissibility in Canadian courts. particularly in the realm of electronic documents and expert testimony. Judicial Discretion Ongoing Evolution The Act maintains the crucial As legal practices and role of judicial discretion, technologies continue to evolve, ensuring that justice is served the CEA's interpretation and beyond mere technical application will likely continue to compliance. develop through case law and potential amendments. Purpose of Rules Reliability Fair Trial Efficiency Predictability Rules ensure that only Rules guarantee the Rules streamline the trial Rules establish clear evidence that is accused receives a fair process, preventing procedures that allow the trustworthy and reliable is trial, including the right to unnecessary delays and accused to prepare their admitted in court. This a defense attorney and ensuring efficient use of defense and anticipate protects the accused from the opportunity to court resources. the course of the trial. being convicted on the challenge evidence. basis of unreliable evidence. Terms and Definitions 1 Evidence 2 Probative Value Something that serves to Evidence that is capable of prove or disprove an proving, or having the assertion. tendency to prove something. 3 Corroboration Confirmation from a second source that a witness is telling the truth. Key Concepts: Proof Burden Standard The obligation to prove a fact in The level of certainty required to court. establish a fact. Key Concepts: Presumptions Presumption Rebuttable Presumption Constitutional Presumption A legal reasoning process where the A presumption that can be disproven A presumption enshrined in the proof of one fact suggests the by evidence to the contrary. Canadian Charter of Rights and existence of another. Freedoms. Key Concepts: Inferences 1 Inference 2 Circumstantial Evidence A method of establishing facts without direct Necessary to establish evidence. facts by circumstantial evidence. 3 Logical Flow 4 Avoid Speculation Inferences must flow Cannot be conjecture or reasonably and logically speculation. from established facts. Types of Evidence Oral Evidence Real Evidence Documentary Evidence Testimony given verbally in court by Physical objects, such as weapons, Written documents, such as contracts, witnesses. clothing, or DNA. letters, or emails. Types of Evidence, continued Opinion Evidence Expert Evidence Secondary Sources Judicial Notice A witness's personal Testimony from a qualified Documents or reports Facts that are generally opinion on a matter in expert on a subject created by someone other known or accepted by the dispute. relevant to the case. than the witness. court without proof. Types of Evidence in the Legal System This presentation will explore seven key types of evidence used in legal proceedings: opinion, expert, secondary, oral, real, documentary, and judicial notice. Understanding these different forms of evidence is crucial for law students and legal professionals to effectively analyze and present cases in court. Opinion Evidence: An Overview Definition General Rule Testimony based on a Witnesses are typically not witness's personal belief or allowed to give opinion judgment rather than direct evidence knowledge of facts Exception Legal Principle Expert witnesses may Witnesses should testify provide opinion evidence in only to facts they have their area of expertise directly observed The Importance of Factual Testimony "The general exclusionary rule is that witnesses may not give opinion evidence, but testify only as to facts." This quote from R. v. Marquard 4 S.C.R. 223 emphasizes the importance of factual testimony in legal proceedings. The court system relies on witnesses providing accurate, firsthand accounts of events rather than personal interpretations or judgments. Expert Evidence: Specialized Knowledge in Cou Definition Purpose Expert evidence assists the Expert evidence is a form court in understanding of opinion evidence complex or technical issues provided by individuals that are beyond the with specialized knowledge of the average knowledge, skills, or person. This type of experience in a particular evidence is crucial in cases field. These experts are involving scientific, allowed to give opinions on medical, or technical matters within their area of matters. expertise. The Role of Expert Testimony "The opinions of scholars who did not testify only became evidence if they were adopted by the experts as authoritative and thereby read into the body of evidence, or were relied upon by the experts in their own opinions." This statement by Justice Garson in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 BCSC 1146, highlights the importance of expert testimony in introducing scholarly opinions into evidence. It underscores the role of experts in interpreting and validating complex information for the court. Secondary Evidence: When Primary Sources Are Unavailable Definition Admissibility Evidence that is not original or Generally less preferred than primary, such as copies of primary evidence, but may be documents or hearsay testimony admissible in certain about the contents of a circumstances document Examples Legal Consideration Photocopies of contracts, Courts must weigh the reliability testimony about the contents of a and necessity of secondary lost document, or expert reliance evidence when primary sources on scholarly works are unavailable Distinguishing Primary and Secondary Evidence In Ahousaht v Canada (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 1494, Justice Garson made an important distinction between primary and secondary evidence. She referred to secondary evidence as "what she called commentary" and noted that experts often relied on scholarly works of other professionals to support their opinions. This distinction highlights the hierarchy of evidence in legal proceedings, with primary sources generally carrying more weight but secondary sources playing a crucial role in supporting expert testimony and filling gaps when primary evidence is unavailable. Oral Evidence: The Power of Spoken Testimony Direct Testimony Witnesses provide firsthand accounts of events or facts relevant to the case Cross-Examination Opposing counsel challenges and tests the credibility of witness testimony Credibility Assessment The court evaluates the reliability and truthfulness of oral testimony Factors Affecting the Weight of Oral Evidence 1 Witness Credibility 2 Consistency of Testimony 3 Demeanor and Body Language 4 Ability to Withstand Cross-Examination 5 Corroboration with Other Evidence The weight given to oral evidence depends on various factors that help the court assess its reliability and truthfulness. Judges and juries consider these elements when evaluating the strength of spoken testimony in legal proceedings. Real Evidence: Tangible Proof in Legal Proceedings Definition Importance Real evidence, also known as physical evidence, refers to Real evidence is often considered highly reliable as it can tangible objects or items that are directly relevant to the be directly observed and examined by the court. It facts in issue. This type of evidence can be physically provides concrete, physical proof that can support or presented and examined in court. refute claims made in a case. Examples of Real Evidence Handling and Presenting Real Evidence Collection Proper gathering and preservation of physical evidence at the crime scene or relevant location Chain of Custody Maintaining a documented trail of possession to ensure evidence integrity Authentication Verifying the authenticity and relevance of the evidence to the case Presentation Introducing the evidence in court and allowing for examination by all parties Documentary Evidence: Written Proof in Legal Cases Definition Types Written or recorded Contracts, letters, emails, materials presented to the business records, and other court as proof of facts written or electronic documents Importance Challenges Provides tangible, often Authentication, contemporaneous records interpretation, and of events or agreements admissibility issues may arise Demonstrative Aids in Documentary Evidence "[Demonstrative aids] must be fair and are not intended to be a form of advocacy akin to a closing address." This quote from O'Kane v Lillqvist-O'Kane, 2021 ABQB 925, highlights the use of demonstrative aids as a form of documentary evidence. These aids, such as charts, graphs, or timelines, can help clarify complex information for the court. However, they must be used fairly and not as a means of advocacy. Judicial Notice: Facts Beyond Dispute Definition Purpose Facts that are so well-known To streamline legal or indisputable that they do proceedings by accepting not require formal proof in certain facts without the court need for evidence Examples Caution Calendar dates, basic Courts must be careful not to scientific principles, or well- take judicial notice of established historical facts controversial or disputed facts Types of Judicially Noticed Facts Adjudicative Facts Legislative Facts Specific facts related to the parties or issues in a General facts that help the court determine the content of particular case. These are usually case-specific and must law and policy. These often involve social, economic, or be proven unless they are so well-known that proof is scientific information that informs legal reasoning and unnecessary. decision-making. Judicial Notice in Practice In the Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, 2019 QCCA 1492, Chief Justice Dickson's approach to judicial notice was mentioned. The case highlighted that courts can take notice of legislative facts, particularly when dealing with matters that could be decisive in a case. This approach underscores the importance of judicial notice in addressing broader legal and policy issues, allowing courts to consider well-established facts without the need for extensive evidence presentation. Challenges in Applying Different Types of Evidence Admissibility 1 Determining which evidence meets legal standards for presentation in court Reliability 2 Assessing the trustworthiness and accuracy of various forms of evidence Interpretation 3 Understanding and applying complex or technical evidence correctly Bias 4 Recognizing and mitigating potential biases in evidence presentation and evaluation The Interplay of Different Evidence Types Complementary Evidence Different types of evidence often work together to build a stronger case Conflicting Evidence Courts must weigh contradictory evidence to determine the facts of a case Corroboration Multiple forms of evidence can reinforce each other, strengthening credibility Best Evidence Rule Originals Required Purpose At common law, parties were The rule was established to required to submit originals of avoid fraud or forgery. any documentary evidence unless they could show the original was lost or destroyed. Modern Relevance Copies and Weight The rule is still important Copies can affect the weight today, even with the rise of given to evidence, depending digital documents. Guidance on the circumstances. was provided to Alberta lawyers by former CA judge Cote in 2016. Evolution of the Best Evidence Rule in Common Law Here we briefly sidetrack to have a better look at the evolution of the best evidence rule. R. v. Betterest Vinyl Manufacturing Ltd. (1989) Court British Columbia Court of Appeal Key Point Best evidence rule limited to requiring original if available Secondary Evidence Admissible when failure to produce original is explained R. v. Swartz (1977) 1 2 3 Court Approach Secondary Evidence Ontario Court of Appeal, affirmed Adopted a more flexible approach Admissible if original destroyed by Supreme Court of Canada to the best evidence rule accidentally or in good faith U.S. v. Knohl (1967) Court Key Principle U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Secondary evidence Circuit admissible if equal in probative value to primary proof Condition Fraud or imposition not reasonably feared R. v. Wayte (1983) Court Key Ruling English Court of Appeal Best evidence rule confined to specific cases Application When party has original, could produce it, but does not ITV Technologies Inc v WIC Television Ltd (2 Court Outcome Reasoning Federal Court of Canada Objection dismissed, recognizing Accurate copies diminish importance modern technology's impact of best evidence rule Key Takeaways: Best Evidence Rule Evolutio Flexibility 1 Courts now adopt a more flexible approach Technology 2 Modern technology impacts rule application Secondary Evidence 3 Increasingly accepted under certain conditions Original Document 4 Still preferred, but not always required Admissibility 1 Charter of Rights 2 Exclusion of Evidence Section 8 of the Charter Section 24 of the Charter guarantees the right to be allows for the exclusion of secure against evidence obtained in unreasonable search and violation of Charter rights. seizure. 3 Illegally Obtained Evidence The Canadian legal system has rules for excluding evidence obtained improperly, with a 3-part test. Exclusionary Rules Privilege Character Evidence Prior Statements Certain communications are protected Evidence about the accused's Prior consistent statements (that from disclosure, such as those between character is generally inadmissible to support a witness's current testimony) a lawyer and their client. prove they committed the crime. and prior inconsistent statements (that contradict a witness's current testimony) are subject to specific rules of admissibility. Exclusionary Rules Hearsay Similar Fact Evidence An out-of-court statement Evidence of a person's past offered in court to prove the conduct to prove that they truth of the matter asserted. are likely to have acted in a similar way on the occasion in question. Canadian Criminal Evidence: Hearsay In this section we will have a quick and more detailed look at the hearsay rule and the exceptions to it. What is Hearsay? Definition General Rule Any statement, written or Hearsay evidence is oral, made out of court but generally considered presented in court to prove inadmissible in court. the truth of that statement. Key Characteristic Statements or conduct tendered as proof of their truth or implicit assertions. Reasons for Inadmissibility Potential for Fraud Secondary Evidence Lack of oath from the source increases Hearsay results in decisions based on risk of fraudulent statements. weaker, secondary evidence. Lack of Observation Trial Length No opportunity to observe declarant's Introduction of hearsay evidence can demeanor, making assessment difficult. lengthen trials significantly. Elements of Hearsay Purpose 1 Introducing statement to prove its truth Statement 2 The content of the hearsay Recipient 3 Person receiving the statement Declarant 4 Original source of the statement These four elements are considered when determining if the hearsay rule is engaged. The first three are usually evident, while the purpose often causes controversy. Admissibility of Out-of-Court Statements Inadmissible Admissible Statements used to prove the truth Statements used to show notice, of their contents are presumptively knowledge, motive, or other inadmissible unless they fit a probative purposes are admissible traditional categorical exception or as they are not considered hearsay. the principled exception. Application: Computer Records General Rule Example The absence of data in a Negative results from police computer system is not record inquiries about a generally considered suspect are not typically hearsay. classified as hearsay. Implication This allows for the admission of certain computer-generated evidence without hearsay concerns. Application: Opinion Evidence Non-specific Hearsay Opinion Opinions that are vague or general in nature and based on hearsay Evaluation Considered unreliable and lacking in specific, verifiable details Admissibility Inadmissible in court proceedings Application: Phone Calls in Drug Cases 1 Historical Context Drug purchase phone calls, especially those involving police, have a history of litigation regarding their admissibility as hearsay. 2 Admissibility Trend More often than not, these calls have been admitted as either necessary and reliable or as non-hearsay evidence. 3 Case-by-Case Basis Courts continue to evaluate the admissibility of such evidence on a case-by-case basis, considering factors like necessity and reliability. Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay 1 Admissions 2 Res Gestae Statements made by a Spontaneous utterances party against their own made in the heat of the interest. moment. 3 Dying Declarations 4 Business Records Statements made by a Regularly kept records in person who believes death the course of business. is imminent. Principled Exception to Hearsay Necessity 1 Evidence is necessary to prove a fact in issue Reliability 2 Circumstances provide sufficient guarantee of trustworthiness Probative Value 3 Probative value outweighs prejudicial effect The principled exception allows for the admission of hearsay evidence when these criteria are met, providing flexibility in the application of hearsay rules. Landmark Cases on Hearsay Key cases like R. v. Evans, R. v. Smith, and R. v. Khelawon have shaped the interpretation and application of hearsay rules in Canadian criminal law. Impact of Hearsay Rules Positive Impacts Challenges Ensures reliability of evidence Can exclude potentially relevant evidence Protects right to cross-examination Requires complex legal analysis Maintains integrity of judicial process May lengthen trial proceedings Conclusion: The Future of Hearsay in Canadian Law As technology and communication methods evolve, the application of hearsay rules in Canadian criminal law continues to adapt. Courts must balance the need for reliable evidence with the realities of modern communication and information sharing. The ongoing development of case law and potential legislative changes will shape the future interpretation and application of hearsay rules in Canadian criminal proceedings. Electronic Surveillance Police Surveillance Private Surveillance Electronic surveillance conducted by law enforcement Surveillance conducted by individuals, such as nanny officers. Requires a warrant unless an exception applies. cams. May be subject to privacy laws or regulations. Assessing Weight Relevance Probative Value Credibility Reliability Evidence must be The evidence must be The source of the The evidence must be relevant to the case at probative, meaning it evidence must be reliable, meaning it is hand. must be likely to prove a credible, meaning they accurate and dependable. fact in issue. are believable and trustworthy. Relevance Extent of Proof Probative Value General Rule of Evidence Evidence must tend to prove, Evidence must have probative value, Only relevant evidence should be disprove, or explain a fact in issue. meaning it must be capable of admitted, and it should never be proving something. excluded unless it is excluded by a specific rule. Credibility 1 Assessing Weight 2 Truthfulness How much weight to give The extent to which a to a witness's statement. witness is telling the truth (trustworthiness). 3 No Presumption 4 Factors There is no presumption of Character, consistency, honesty. and bias are key factors. Copyright Notice This publication is subject to copyright protection. Unauthorized reproduction and distribution is prohibited. For inquiries, contact the Director, Centre for Instructional Technology and Development.