|
Evidence Case Dicta - Admissions (includes Confessions) (2). Gandhi v. Mayfield Arcadeium Holdings Ltd.
In Gandhi v. Mayfield Arcadeium Holdings Ltd. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court allows an appeal against an order that held a lien claim was invalid for lateness in issuing the "statement of claim to enforce the lien claim".
In these quotes the court considers the role of 'claim for lien' pleadings as evidentiary admissions:The Legal Issue
[26] The question before the motion judge was whether Mr. Gandhi commenced this litigation within 90 days of his last supply of services of the project. This is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence.
[27] Mr. Gandhi commenced this action on July 10, 2023.
[28] If the date of last supply was April 2, 2023, as set out in Mr. Gandhi’s Claim for Lien form, then he commenced this lawsuit nine days too late. If the date of last supply was April 11, 2023, as Mr. Gandhi affirmed in cross-examination and as supported by the WeChat screenshots, then the litigation was commenced just in time.
....
[29] The motion judge analyzed the issue as follows:[22] The contents of a claim for lien are a significant part of the statutory scheme; that document is not a mere pleading as argued by the Responding Party. Moreover, the contents of a claim for lien constitute an admission by the Responding Party under the law of evidence, an exception to the hearsay rule. In my view the testimony that they might have been mistaken are not convincing, despite other evidence given by Gandhi about relevant activity after April 2, 2023.
[23] In my view the claim for lien is to be taken at its face value in the case at bar. Powerful evidence, not present before me, will be necessary for the lien claimant to overcome the strength of assertions in his own claim for lien.
[24] Those assertions have consequences which determine the issue of which act applies and whether perfection was timely. [30] The motion judge held that because the Claim for Lien was an important document and an “admission” for the purposes of the law of evidence, powerful evidence is necessary for a lien claimant to overcome its contents.
....
Question of Law
[36] No law is cited for the proposition that a Claim for Lien form has special status as evidence in a lien proceeding.
[37] The fact that a statement in a document is an “admission” for the purposes of the law of evidence just means that it is admissible in evidence despite being hearsay. If a document is used to prove the truth of its contents, it is hearsay because it is a statement made out of court. Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless there is an applicable exception to the exclusionary rule.
[38] Admissions are a recognized exception to the hearsay exclusion rule. Admissions are anything said, written, or done by a party tendered by the opposite party in evidence: Lederman, Bryant, and Fuerst, The Law of Evidence in Canada, Fourth Edition (Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2014) at §6.417.
[39] The fact that a piece of evidence is an admission, i.e. a statement made by a party out of court, just makes it admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. It has no greater significance.
[40] However, there is a recognized category of formal admissions made in pleadings, and formal documents in litigation can be subject to special rules to limit a party’s ability to withdraw that kind of admission. See, for example, Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194. But as Lederman et al. note at §6.418,As in the case of all admissions, except those known as “judicial or formal admissions”, the party who made it may later lead evidence at trial to reveal the circumstances under which the admission was made in order to reduce its prejudicial effect. [41] The motion judge accepted that Mr. Gandhi’s Claim for Lien was not a pleading. Its contents, no doubt, are an admission by Mr. Gandhi. That means that they are provable against him in evidence for the truth of their content despite being a statement made out of court and therefore hearsay.
[42] But, absent a formal judicial admission and an applicable special standard, like Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the date in a Claim for Lien form has no special status requiring especially “powerful evidence” to rebut it. . R. v. Amin ['Mr.Big sting']
In R. v. Amin (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal engages in an extending review of 'similar fact' evidence, here in the context of a 'Mr.Big' police sting operation where the goal is to obtain a confession from the defendant wrt the other, 'target' crime.
One of the court's apparent concerns was that by inducing the defendant to become involved with the fake crimes, the jury would be likely to be prejudiced against them in the same manner that 'similar fact' (Handy) evidence can do:A. Overview
[1] Evidence that accused persons committed bad acts other than the crime they are charged with committing is dangerous. This evidence can poison the jury and lead them to convict accused persons because they appear to be bad people who keep bad company, rather than because the Crown has proved that they committed the charged crime. The improper admission and misuse of such evidence can result in wrongful convictions. This risk is heightened where the Crown relies on similarities between the accused’s bad acts other than the crime charged and that crime to prove that the accused is the person who committed the crime because there is a risk that such similarities are merely a coincidence.
[2] Police undercover operations intended to elicit confessions pose these and other dangers. These operations frequently induce the suspect to join a fictitious organization and participate in simulated crimes or bad actions, culminating in an interview in which the organization’s boss asks the suspect to confess as the price of joining the organization. They inevitably elicit evidence of the suspect’s bad acts other than the charged crime by showing the suspect’s willingness to associate with bad people and/or perform simulated crimes or other wrongful acts that can be highly prejudicial. They also risk inducing false confessions because the suspect is motivated to join the organization and fears that failure to confess will result in rejection.
[3] The justice system has developed safeguards governing the admission and use of evidence of the accused’s bad acts other than the crime charged and statements by the accused made during police undercover operations to protect against wrongful convictions. Where the Crown uses evidence of the accused’s bad acts other than the crime charged to help prove the accused’s identity as the perpetrator, it can only be admitted if it is very similar to how the charged crime was committed and its value outweighs the risks that the jury will misuse it. Trial judges who admit this evidence must warn jurors that they cannot use it to convict accused persons simply because they appear to be bad people. Further, trial judges must carefully evaluate the reliability of statements made to undercover officers to guard against the danger of false confessions.
....
D. Analysis
[26] The appellant argues that there must be a new trial because the trial judge both erroneously admitted the murder advice and failed to warn the jury about the dangers of misusing that advice and the June 27 statements. I agree. As I will explain, the trial judge did not comply with the legal safeguards governing the admission and use of the murder advice and June 27 statements. These errors require a new trial because they create a real risk that the jury convicted the appellant because he appeared to be a bad and violent person rather than because the Crown proved its case.
(1) The Governing Legal Framework: Handy and Hart
[27] Admitting evidence that an accused has committed bad acts other than the offence charged is dangerous. The Supreme Court of Canada has described such bad act evidence as poisonous and warned that its admission and use without proper safeguards risks wrongful convictions: Handy, at paras. 58, 138-141, 146; R. v. B. (F.F.), 1993 CanLII 167 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697, at p. 735.[2] This evidence triggers the danger of moral prejudice, which is the natural human tendency to judge people based on their character and convict accused persons because they are bad people. For instance, juries may reason that accused persons committed a violent crime because they are violent people: Handy, at paras. 39-40. This evidence also poses a second danger, reasoning prejudice, because it risks confusing the trier of fact and distracting from the facts underlying the actual charge against the accused: Handy, at para. 100.
[28] Handy adopted a test to guard against the dangers of bad act evidence. This test applies to bad act evidence led by the Crown, including both criminal acts and other conduct an ordinary person would disapprove of: Handy, at para. 34; R. v. Johnson, 2010 ONCA 646, 262 C.C.C. (3d) 404, at paras. 88, 90. The test makes bad act evidence presumptively inadmissible unless the Crown can show on a balance of probabilities that it is relevant to an issue other than the accused’s general propensity to commit bad acts and that its probative value in relation to that issue outweighs the risks of moral and reasoning prejudice: Handy, at paras. 55, 69-75, 100.
[29] Handy provides guidance on how to assess the probative value of bad act evidence when the Crown tenders it as propensity evidence. Propensity evidence is bad act evidence that the Crown tenders to show that the accused has a disposition to act in a particular way and thus acted in that way by committing the charged offence: R. v. Batte (2000), 2000 CanLII 5751 (ON CA), 49 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at para. 97. Propensity evidence is either general or specific: R. v. Dooley, 2009 ONCA 910, 249 C.C.C. (3d) 449, at para. 170. General propensity evidence merely shows that the accused has a general disposition for violence or other crime and is never admissible: Handy, at para. 31. Specific propensity evidence is more context-specific and is sometimes admissible but remains dangerous because it still poses the risks of moral and reasoning prejudice: Dooley, at para. 170; Handy, at paras. 59-68. The degree of similarity between the bad acts and the facts of the charged crime determines the probative value of specific propensity evidence. A greater degree of similarity makes it unlikely that the similarities are a coincidence: Handy, at paras. 41-48, 76.
[30] The Handy test includes a special rule, which I will refer to as the identity rule. This rule guards against the special dangers of propensity evidence that the Crown seeks to use to prove the accused’s identity as the perpetrator: R. v. Perrier, 2004 SCC 56, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 228, at para. 20. Under this rule, propensity evidence is only admissible to prove identity if it has a high degree of similarity to the charged crime that negates the possibility of coincidence: Perrier, at paras. 19, 44. The rule’s high threshold protects against the risk that the similarities are coincidental: Perrier, at para. 20, citing Handy, at para. 91. To meet it, the Crown must establish on a balance of probabilities that the same person committed both the other bad acts and the charged crime: Perrier, at para. 20. The Crown can do so by either showing a “‘unique trademark or signature’” or a number of significant similarities that cumulatively preclude coincidence: Perrier, at para. 19, quoting R. v. Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339, at para. 45; see also Handy, at para. 77.
[31] Evidence obtained in police undercover operations designed to induce confessions can also risk wrongful convictions. These operations frequently involve undercover officers offering a suspect incentives to join a fictitious organization and then telling the suspect that to become a member the suspect must first confess to having committed the crime to the organization’s leader: Hart, at paras. 1-2. These operations often, but not always, take the form of a classic “Mr. Big” investigation in which undercover officers elicit a confession during an interview-like meeting between the suspect and the boss of a fictitious criminal organization, who is known as Mr. Big: Hart, at paras. 1-2. These operations pose three dangers: they risk resulting in unreliable confessions; they may prejudice accused persons in the eyes of the trier of fact by showing their willingness to join a criminal organization and engage in simulated crimes; and, they may become abusive and unduly coercive: Hart, at paras. 5-9. Like bad act evidence, the admission of confessions deriving from these types of operations can create a risk of wrongful convictions: Hart, at para. 8.
[32] The Hart test guards against the dangers posed by undercover police operations undertaken to obtain confessions. Hart applies to two types of police operations designed to elicit confessions: (1) those in which undercover officers recruit the accused into a fictitious criminal organization, and (2) other undercover operations not involving a fictitious criminal organization that still pose the three dangers Hart identified: Hart, at paras. 10, 85; R. v. Quinton, 2021 ONCA 44, 399 C.C.C. (3d) 514, at paras. 40-42; R. v. Zvolensky, 2017 ONCA 273, 135 O.R. (3d) 401, at paras. 83-85, leave to appeal refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 403. If Hart applies, any confession the accused makes to undercover officers during the operation is presumptively inadmissible unless the Crown establishes on a balance of probabilities that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect: Hart, at para. 85. Even if the Crown makes this showing, the trial judge may still exclude the confession if the police conduct is an abuse of process, as may be the case where the police use unacceptably coercive tactics: Hart, at paras. 86, 113-118. Hart uses but does not define the term “confession,” a point to which I will return later.
[33] Handy and Hart both address some of the same concerns, adopt a similar balancing test, and are subject to a deferential standard of appellate review. Both determine the evidence’s prejudicial effect by assessing the risks of moral and reasoning prejudice: Hart, at paras. 73-74; Handy, at para. 42. Further, both tests make the evidence presumptively inadmissible unless the Crown can prove on a balance of probabilities that the evidence’s probative value outweighs its potential prejudice: Hart, at para. 85; Handy, at para. 55. Finally, appellate courts will defer to trial judges’ balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect under both tests unless the trial judge errs in law, misapprehends the evidence, or reaches an unreasonable result: Hart, at para. 110; Handy, at para. 153; R. v. McDonald, 2017 ONCA 568, 351 C.C.C. (3d) 486, at para. 85.
[34] However, the two tests focus on different types of evidence, take different approaches to assessing probative value, and vary in their approach to police misconduct. Hart addresses confessions by the accused accompanied by bad act evidence as context for the accused’s confession, while Handy solely concerns bad act evidence: Hart, at paras. 2, 73, 76; Handy, at para. 34. Because Hart concerns confessions that are often highly probative of guilt if reliable, its assessment of probative value focuses on reliability factors: Hart, at paras. 99-105. In contrast, when the Crown seeks to use other bad act evidence as propensity evidence, Handy assesses probative value principally by whether the bad acts other than the crime charged are similar enough to the facts of the charged offences to negate the possibility of coincidence: Handy, at para. 76. Finally, Hart addresses the risk of police misconduct while Handy does not: Hart, at para. 86. The court continues [at paras 36-62, with several useful case cites] to analyse these errors by the trial court, and further [at paras 63-75] by not cautioning the jury on the potential prejudicial effect of the 'similar fact' evidence.
|
