LSO Barrister Evidence Law

Question 1

What is the 'hearsay rule' in Canadian evidence law and what is its rationale?

Accepted Answer

An out-of-court statement tendered for the truth of its contents is presumptively inadmissible because it was not made under oath, the declarant was not subject to cross-examination, and the trier of fact could not observe demeanour

Answer

The hearsay rule excludes out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of their contents. The rationale rests on three concerns: (1) the declarant did not make the statement under oath; (2) the opposing party had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant; (3) the trier of fact cannot assess the declarant's demeanour and credibility. However, numerous traditional and principled exceptions exist (R v Khan, R v Khelawon).

Question 2

What is the 'principled approach' to hearsay exceptions established in R v Khan and R v Khelawon?

Accepted Answer

Hearsay evidence may be admitted if the proponent demonstrates it is both 'necessary' (the declarant is unavailable or there is no adequate substitute) and 'reliable' (there is a sufficient basis for the trier of fact to assess its truth)

Answer

The principled approach (R v Khan, 1990; refined in R v Khelawon, 2006) allows hearsay admission based on two criteria: (1) Necessity — the declarant is unavailable (death, illness, incompetence) or there is no adequate alternative to the hearsay; (2) Reliability — threshold reliability is established either through the circumstances of the statement or through adequate substitutes for testing (e.g., the declarant can be cross-examined at trial). This approach supplements, but does not replace, the traditional exceptions.

Question 3

What is 'solicitor-client privilege' and how does it differ from 'litigation privilege' in Ontario?

Accepted Answer

Solicitor-client privilege protects confidential communications between lawyer and client for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice (permanent), while litigation privilege protects documents and communications prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation (ends when litigation concludes)

Answer

Solicitor-client privilege is a substantive right (near-absolute protection) covering confidential communications between lawyer and client for legal advice. It is permanent and survives the relationship's end and the client's death. Litigation privilege protects documents and communications created for the dominant purpose of existing or contemplated litigation. It is temporary — it ends when the litigation concludes. Both are fundamental to the administration of justice but serve different purposes.

Question 4

What is the 'best evidence rule' and how has it evolved in Canadian law?

Accepted Answer

The original document (or a reliable copy) must be produced when the contents of a document are at issue, though the rule has been significantly relaxed by statute (e.g., the Canada Evidence Act allows copies) and modern case law

Answer

The best evidence rule traditionally required production of the original document when its contents were in issue (secondary evidence, such as copies, was presumptively inadmissible). The rule has been substantially relaxed: the Canada Evidence Act and Ontario Evidence Act allow copies where originals are unavailable, and modern courts focus on the reliability and authenticity of the evidence rather than strict adherence to the original document requirement.

Question 5

What is the test for the admissibility of 'similar fact evidence' in Canadian law?

Accepted Answer

Similar fact evidence is admissible when its probative value in relation to a specific issue outweighs its prejudicial effect, as established in R v Handy — the court must identify the specific issue, assess the connection, and weigh probative value against moral and reasoning prejudice

Answer

R v Handy (2002) established that similar fact evidence (evidence of prior misconduct) is admissible when its probative value on a specific issue substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The court considers: (1) the specific issue to which the evidence is relevant; (2) the degree of similarity between the acts; (3) the number of similar acts; (4) proximity in time; (5) circumstances surrounding each act; and (6) any intervening events. The onus is on the party seeking to admit it.

Ontario Bar Barrister Practice Test

Ontario Bar Barrister Practice Test

LSO Barrister Evidence Law