LSO Barrister Evidence Law 2

Question 1

What is the 'Mohan test' for the admissibility of expert evidence in Canadian courts?

Accepted Answer

The expert evidence must meet four criteria: relevance, necessity (beyond the knowledge of the trier of fact), absence of an exclusionary rule, and proper qualification of the expert — plus the cost-benefit analysis from White Burgess regarding impartiality and bias

Answer

R v Mohan (1994) established four criteria: (1) relevance to an issue in the case; (2) necessity — the evidence must be necessary to assist the trier of fact because it is beyond ordinary knowledge and experience; (3) no exclusionary rule bars its admission; (4) the witness is properly qualified by education, training, or experience. White Burgess (2015) added a threshold requirement of impartiality — the expert must be willing and able to fulfill their duty to the court to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

Question 2

What is the 'KGB statement' and when can prior inconsistent statements be admitted for their truth in Canadian criminal law?

Accepted Answer

Following R v B(KGB), a prior inconsistent statement can be admitted for its truth if it was made under oath or solemn affirmation, was video or audio recorded, and the opposing party has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial

Answer

R v B(KGB) (1993) created an exception allowing prior inconsistent statements to be admitted for their truth (not just to impeach credibility) when three conditions of reliability are met: (1) the statement was made under oath, solemn affirmation, or solemn declaration; (2) the statement was videotaped in its entirety; (3) the opposing party has a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial. These conditions provide adequate substitutes for the safeguards of in-court testimony.

Question 3

What is the 'confessions rule' (Ibrahim rule) in Canadian criminal law?

Accepted Answer

A confession to a person in authority is only admissible if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntary — not induced by threats, promises, oppression, or an operating mind deficiency

Answer

The common law confessions rule (Ibrahim v The King, 1914) requires the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement to a person in authority was voluntary. Voluntariness examines: (1) threats or promises (inducements); (2) oppression (prolonged questioning, deprivation); (3) whether the accused had an operating mind (understanding of the process); (4) police trickery that would shock the community. This rule operates alongside, not replaced by, Charter protections (s.7, s.10(b)).

Question 4

What are the rules regarding 'character evidence' of the accused in Canadian criminal proceedings?

Accepted Answer

The accused's character evidence is generally inadmissible if introduced by the Crown, but the accused may 'put their character in issue' by leading good character evidence — which then opens the door for the Crown to respond with bad character evidence

Answer

The general rule prohibits the Crown from leading evidence of the accused's bad character or disposition to prove guilt (it is too prejudicial and of limited probative value). However, the accused may choose to put their character in issue by leading evidence of good character. This 'opens the door' for the Crown to introduce evidence of bad character in rebuttal. Exceptions include similar fact evidence (R v Handy) and cross-examination on criminal record if the accused testifies.

Question 5

What is 'privilege against self-incrimination' in Canadian law and what protections does it provide?

Accepted Answer

It encompasses the right to silence (s.7 Charter), the protection against compelled testimony at one's own trial (s.11(c) Charter), and use immunity for testimony compelled in other proceedings (s.13 Charter) — preventing compelled testimony from being used against the witness in subsequent proceedings

Answer

The protection against self-incrimination has multiple dimensions: (1) s.11(c) — an accused cannot be compelled to testify at their own trial; (2) s.7 right to silence — the right not to be conscripted against oneself; (3) s.13 use immunity — testimony compelled in one proceeding cannot be used to incriminate the witness in subsequent proceedings (except perjury/contradictory evidence); (4) the common law right to silence pre-trial. Together, these protect the principle that the state must prove its case without conscripting the accused.

Ontario Bar Barrister Practice Test

Ontario Bar Barrister Practice Test

LSO Barrister Evidence Law 2