|
Evidence - Re-Examination. R. v. R.G.
In R. v. R.G. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the re-examination of witnesses, here in a criminal context:[162] The permissible scope of re-examination is a matter committed to the trial judge’s discretion: R. v. Candir, 2009 ONCA 915, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 139, at para. 148, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 8.
[163] Re-examination may properly clarify matters arising from cross-examination, subject always to the trial judge’s obligation to prevent unfairness: Candir, at para. 148. . R. v. A.J.D.
In R. v. A.J.D. (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal explains the function of re-examination:[63] I now address the appellant’s specific arguments on this issue. The law governing re-examination is well-settled and a full answer to those arguments: see R. v. Evans, 1993 CanLII 102 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629, at p. 644, and R. v. Candir, 2009 ONCA 915, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 139, at para. 148, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 8.
[64] At para. 148 of Candir, Watt J.A., writing for this court, set out the following principles which govern re-examination:1. The permissible scope of re-examination is linked to its purpose and the subject-matter on which the witness was cross-examined.
2. The purpose of re-examination is largely rehabilitative and explanatory. The witness is afforded the opportunity, under questioning by the examiner who called the witness in the first place, to explain, clarify or qualify answers given in cross-examination that are considered damaging to the examiner’s case.
3. The examiner has no right to introduce new subjects in re-examination, topics that should have been covered, if at all, in examination-in-chief of the witness. [65] The appellant’s arguments must be rejected in light of these principles. The scope of re-examination is linked to its purpose and the subject-matter on which the witness was cross-examined. The Crown raised no issue about the appellant’s intellectual capacity in cross-examination. The subject-matter of the cross-examination was the appellant’s inconsistent versions of (among other things) what happened on the last evening that he slept at C.S.’s home. The questions that the Crown put to the appellant in cross-examination were for the purpose of testing the appellant’s credibility. Credibility is not a “subject-matter” on which the appellant was examined.
|
