In R. v. Charles (SCC, 2024) the Supreme Court of Canada considered the SOR on an evidentiary hearsay issue:
IV. Issues
[39] The appellant raises only one issue: Did the Quebec Court of Appeal err in law in upholding the decision to admit K.A.’s statement into evidence on the basis of the principled exception to the hearsay rule?
[40] The reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal raise a second issue: Did the majority of the Court of Appeal err in relying on the complainant’s testimony to find that the threshold reliability of K.A.’s statement had been established?
V. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
[41] Both issues are subject to a correctness standard. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is a question of law. However, as my colleagues in dissent have correctly noted, an appellate court must accord deference to the findings of fact underlying an admissibility ruling. It must also be borne in mind that “a trial judge is well placed to assess the hearsay dangers in a particular case and the effectiveness of any safeguards to assist in overcoming them” (R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 720, at para. 31). Thus, “absent an error in principle, the trial judge’s determination of threshold reliability is entitled to deference” (para. 31).
[42] The question of whether it was open to the majority of the Court of Appeal to rely on the complainant’s testimony to find that the threshold reliability of K.A.’s statement was established is also a question of law. The correctness standard therefore applies to this question as well.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
