Canadian Criminal Evidence/Exemptions from Proof

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

There are certain situations in which facts need not be proven and the Judge will be allowed to either presume something or declare something a "fact" by Judicial Notice.


Contents

[edit] Presumptions and Inferences

A presumption is a reasoning process whereby to some degree, proof of one fact (including the proven absence of a fact) is taken as evidence of another fact. For example, A is an adult, so it is presumed that A is legally competent.


[edit] Permissive presumptions

[edit] Mandatory presumptions

[edit] Judicial Notice

A Judge accept something as fact thereby exempting the requirement to present evidence to establish the fact where:

  1. the fact is so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or
  2. the fact is capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy[1]

[edit] Admissions

[edit] Agreed Statements of Fact

If the Crown and defence submit evidence that constitutes an agreed statement of facts, then it should be accepted by the trial judge as “conclusive of the admitted facts".[2]

[edit] References

  1. R. v. Potts, (1982), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.);
    J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed. 1999), at p. 1055.
    R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863 at para 48 [1]
  2. R. v. Baksh 2005 CanLII 24918, (2005), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 201 (Ont. S.C.J.)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
Sister projects
Print/export