R v Dayes – 2013 ONCA 614 (LaForme): [29] I would reject the appellant’s submission because, in my view, it was open to the Crown to cross-examine T.M. under s. 9(2) of the CEA about why his testimony at the trial was inconsistent with his testimony at S.R.’s trial. Such questioning relates to the inconsistent statement and is therefore within Read more...
R v Figiola – 2018 ONCA 578 (Doherty JA): [68] As I understand the thrust of this submission, the appellant contends that cross-examination under s. 9(1) of Crown witnesses is limited to situations in which the inconsistent evidence is unexpected and/or there is some real likelihood that cross-examination will cause the witness to adopt the earlier inconsistent statement. [69] The Read more...
R v Figiola – 2018 ONCA 578 (Doherty JA): [61] In my view, if the Crown has a good faith basis for believing that a witness has relevant evidence to give, the Crown may call that witness even though the Crown expects that the witness will give evidence inconsistent with the Crown’s position and evidence that contradicts the witness’ prior Read more...