Simon looking earnest in Preveza, Greece

simonshields@isthatlegal.ca

Online Lawyer (Ontario)

Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law) / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada)

home / about / Simon's Favorite Charity / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Political
Litigation


THE LATEST WORD
... what's this?
-------------
. R. v. Mullin
In R. v. Mullin (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal sets out this definition of res gestae evidence:
[41] The law permits the introduction of excited or spontaneous utterances as an exception to the rule against hearsay: a “statement relating to a startling event or condition … may be admitted to prove the truth of its contents if it is made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement cause by the event or condition”: David M. Paciocco & Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015), at p. 191. In order for a statement to be admissible, “[t]he stress or pressure of the act or event must be such that the possibility of concoction or deception can be safely discounted. The statement need not be made strictly contemporaneous to the occurrence so long as the stress or pressure created by it is ongoing and the statement is made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent”: R. v. Khan (1988), 1988 CanLII 7106 (ON CA), 42 C.C.C. (3d) 197 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 207, aff’d 1990 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; R. v. Nurse, 2019 ONCA 260 (CanLII), at paras. 77-82; Ratten v. The Queen, [1972] A.C. 378 (P.C.).


-------------
In Dermann v. Baker (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal
[paras 5-12: expert witnesses, the new RCP rules]


In Curley v. Taafe (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal stated as follows on
. evidence / browne v dunne / para 27,31-32
. evidence / judicial notice / 36
. evidence / mitigation / 38

In R. v. Forrester (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal ...
Evidence - Rule in Browne v Dunne para 34

In R v Nurse (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal
Evidence - Hearsay - Dying Declaration/Spontaneous Utterances/Rare Case/Principled Approach
[para 54-110]

Evidence - Affidavits
Chatha v. Johal (Ont CA, 2018)

Evidence - Credibility
Appeals - Grounds - Failure to Make Findings of Credibility

Evidence - Parole Evidence - Contracts

Evidence - Civil - No Immunity from Disclosure of Crown Criminal Evidence

Evidence - Hearsay - Basics

Evidence - Prior Consistent Statements - Basics

Evidence - Opinion - Basics

Evidence - Fresh Evidence

Evidence - Parol Evidence Rule

Evidence - Expert Evidence

Evidence - Settlement Privilege

Evidence - Privilege - Informer

Evidence - Privilege - Public Interest

Evidence - Expert Witnesses

Evidence - Similar Facts

Evidence - Admissions by Third Parties Adopted by a Party through their Silence

Evidence - Hearsay



Evidence - Discovery - Use of at Trial

Evidence - Expert - Hearsay Content

Evidence - Relevance

Evidence - Prior Consistent Statements

Evidence - Similar Fact

Evidence - Relevance

Evidence - Admissibility - Prejudice

Evidence - Failure to Adduce - Adverse Inference

Evidence - Settlement Privilege - Public Interest Exception

Evidence - Demeanour Evidence

Evidence - Expert Opinion

Evidence - Witnesses - Competency

Evidence - Witnesses - Compellability

Evidence - Privilege

Evidence - Spousal Incompetence Rule - Common Law Relationships

Evidence - Identification

Evidence - Rule in Browne v Dunne (Impeachment)

Evidence - Expert Opinion

Evidence - Documentary - Trial Practice for Admission

Evidence - Documentary - Medical Reports are not Business Records

Evidence - Privilege

Evidence - Experts

Evidence - Hearsay - Res Gestae Exception

Evidence - Expert Opinion

Evidence - Judicial Notice


Evidence - Use of Pleadings from Other Proceedings

Evidence - Testimonial - Unsworn Oral Testimony Given In Court

Evidence - Litigation Privilege

Evidence - Solicitor-Client Privilege

Evidence - Expert Evidence

Evidence - Oath-Helping

Evidence - Hearsay - Judicial Records

Evidence - Expert Opinion

Evidence - Credibility - Uneven Scrutiny

Evidence - Judicial Speculation

Evidence - Credibility - Reasons

Evidence - Solicitor-Client Privilege - Waiver

Evidence - Hearsay - Necessity Exception

Evidence - Hearsay - Past Recollection Recorded Exception

Evidence - Expert Evidence - Summary Judgment

Evidence - Character Evidence

Evidence - Solicitor-Client Privilege

Evidence - Hearsay - Principled Exception


Evidence - Hearsay

Evidence - Hearsay - Documents in Possession Rule

Evidence - Similar Facts - Collusion

Evidence - Eyewitness

Evidence - Identification

Evidence - Relevance

Evidence - Circumstantial - Motive

Evidence - Similar Fact Evidence

Evidence - Hearsay - Principled Exception - Corroboration

Evidence - Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Evidence - Collateral Fact Rule

Evidence - Collateral Fact Rule

Evidence - Hearsay - Exception - Necessary and Reliable

Evidence - Rule in Browne v Dunn

Evidence - Rule in Browne v Dunn

Evidence - Collateral Fact Rule

Evidence - Hearsay Exclusion - Co-conspirators Exception

Evidence - Relevance - General

Evidence - Post-Offence Conduct

Evidence - Expert Reports - Practice



Evidence - Basics

Evidence - Opinion Rule

Evidence - Browne v Dunn



Evidence - Hearay - State of Mind Exception
R v Cote (Ont CA, 2018)

Evidence - Adverse Inference from Failure to Call Witness
R v D.E.

Evidence - Expert Opinion - Litigation v Participant Experts
Evidence - Expert Opinion - Admissibility
Imeson v. Maryvale (Maryvale Adolescent and Family Services)


===== EVIDENCE

------------------ Evidence / leadings cases on similar fact evidence

[21] In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge explained his similar fact ruling. After reviewing the principles established by R. v. Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 SCR 339 and R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, he ruled as follows:

------------------ Evidence / leading case on similar fact evidence

R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908

-------------------------------- Evidence

presumption on 'spoiliation' of evidence if against party controlling it http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca170/2015onca170.html

---------------------------- EVIDENCE

48. Reid v. R.L. Johnston Masonry Inc., 2009 CanLII 30452 (ON SCDC) - an expert witness should not be a party or an advocate for a party, they must be independent

50. Coffee Time Donuts Incorporated v. Toshi Enterprises Ltd, 2008 CanLII 68167 (Ont Div Ct, 2008) - while a party's failure to call an otherwise available witness may result in a negative inference against them, such inferences must be logically generated from the issue and the circumstances of the case; a finding a causation (of a fire) against an absent party was not warranted

. R v Basi (SCC, 2009) - informer privilege
Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2020