All 5 - EVIDENCE

R v Stewart – (1977) 2 SCR 748 (Pigeon): (at the bottom, no paragraphs): In my view, this was made all the more serious by the trial judge considering the weight of various elements of proof taken separately. In Côté v. The King [ (1941), 77 C.C.C. 75.], Taschereau J. as he then was, said, speaking for all but one Read more...

R v P(R), 1990 OJ No. 3418 (Doherty – HCJ): [16] Assuming relevance, evidence of utterances made by a deceased (although the rule is not limited to deceased persons) which evidence her state of mind are admissible. If the statements are explicit statements of a state of mind, they are admitted as exceptions to the hearsay rule. If those statements Read more...

R. V. UNDERWOOD (1998), 121 C.C.C. (3D) 117 (S.C.C. – LAMER) Para. 7: “In this context, the case-to-meet principle suggests that the accused should have a right to make a Corbett application, and to know its outcome at the close of the Crown’s case.” Read more...

R. v. Underwood (1998), 121 C.C.C. (3d) 117 (S.C.C. – Lamer) Para. 9: “…[T]he situation can be resolved by holding a voir dire before the defence opens its case. In this voir dire, the defence will reveal the evidence which it intends to call, either through calling witnesses, or through agreed statements of fact. The trial judge can then consider Read more...

R v Starr, 2000 SCC 40 (Iacobucci): [168] The Crown argued that the “state of mind” or “present intentions” exception to the hearsay rule applied to render Cook’s statement to Giesbrecht admissible. This exception was most recently discussed in detail by this Court in Smith, supra, where it was recognized that an “exception to the hearsay rule arises when the Read more...