Spousal Immunity (Prior to July 23, 2015)
On July 23, 2015, the Victims Bill of Rights came into force, amending the provisions of the Evidence Act on spousal privilege and immunity.
Prior to the amendments, s. 4(2), (4), and (5) stated:
The Canada Evidence Act has added exceptions allowing the spouse to be competent and compellable for the Crown and co-accused:
- when called by the defence spouse (s 4(1) CEA)
- when the accused is charged with a listed offence which implicate the health and security of the spouse(s 4(2) CEA)
- when the accused is charged with a listed offence and the victim is under the age of 14 (s 4(4) CEA)
- the accused is charged with an offence involving danger to the spouse's "person, liberty, or health", b) when the accused threatened to the spouse's "person, liberty, or health", or c) violence, cruelty or threats are made against the spouse's child. (s 4(5) and the common law)
Offences listed under s. 4(2) consist of:
- Induces, interferes, etc with a young person subject to the YCJA (136)
- Sexual Interference (Offence) (151)
- Invitation to Sexual Touching (Offence) (152)
- Sexual Exploitation (Offence) (153)
- Incest (Offence) (155)
- Anal Intercourse (159)
- Compelling Bestiality or Committing in Front of a Child (160(2),(3))
- Parent or Guardian Procuring Sexual Activities (170)
- Householder permitting sexual activity (171)
- Making sexually explicit materials available to children (171.1)
- Corrupting children (172)
- Child Luring (Offence) (172.1)
- Agree or Arrange a Sexual Offence Against a Child (172.2)
- Indecent Act (Offence) (173)
- Vagrancy (179)
- Abandoning Child (Offence) (218)
- Sexual Assault (Offence) (271)
- Sexual Assault with a Weapon (272)
- Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm (272)
- Aggravated Sexual Assault (Offence) (273)
- Trafficking in Persons (Offence) (279.01 to 279.03)
- Abduction of a Young Person (Offence) (280 to 283)
- Commodification of Sexual Services (Offence) (286.1 to 286.3)
- Bigamy (291)
- Procuring a Feigning Marriage (292)
- Polygamy (293)
- Pretending to Solemnize a Marriage (294)
Thus, generally speaking spouse cannot testify on behalf of a co-accused or the crown. In civil trials, provincial evidence acts have removed these presumption, allowing spouses to testify in all circumstances.
The immunity is concern with the state of the relationship at the time of the evidence being given, and not at the time of the incident.
The protection is only only those in a "valid and subsisting" marriage. Thus, the spousal exception does not survive the marriage. "Irreconcilably separated" spouses are not protected where there is no marital harmony to preserve. Thus, spouses with "no reasonable prospect of reconciliation" is exempt from spousal immunity. This is determined objectively and on the balance of probabilities..
A spouse refers only to legally married spouses. Those who are:
- common law,
- separated short of divorce with no hope of reconciliation,
are not subject to the spousal immunity.
However, there is some authority suggesting that s. 4(1) and 4(3) must be read up to include common law partners anywhere there is reference to "husband" or "wife".
A competent spouse for a party is necessarily a compellable witness.
A wife who previously consented to a wiretap of conversations between her and her husband but then refuses to testify at trial may rely on spousal privilege s. 4(3) of the Evidence Act.
- see http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1006529
- R v Hawkins, 1996 CanLII 154 (SCC),  3 SCR 1043, per Lamer CJ and Iacobucci J
- see R v MacPherson, 1980 CanLII 2831 (NSCA), (1980) 52 CCC (2d) 547 (NSCA), per Macdonald JA
R v Czipps, 1979 CanLII 2095 (ON CA), 48 CCC (2d) 166, per Morden JA (2:1)
R v Sillars, 1978 CanLII 2433 (BC CA), 45 CCC (2d) 283, per Craig JA
- R v Schell, 2004 ABCA 143 (CanLII), 188 CCC (3d) 254, per Paperny JA
- R v Lonsdale, 1973 ALTASCAD 125 (CanLII), 15 CCC (2d) 201, per Sinclair JA
- R v Salituro, 1991 CanLII 17 (SCC),  3 SCR 654, per Iacobucci J
- R v Jeffrey, 1993 ABCA 245 (CanLII), 84 CCC (3d) 31, per Picard JA
R v Martin, 2009 SKCA 37 (CanLII), 244 CCC (3d) 206, per Klebuc CJ
This rule was found constitutional at R v Thompson, 1994 ABCA 178 (CanLII), 90 CCC (3d) 519, per Harradence JA
- R v Masterson, 2009 CanLII 36305 (ON SC), 245 CCC (3d) 400, per Hennessy J
R v McGuinty, 1986 CanLII 116 (YK CA), 27 CCC (3d) 36, per Lambert JA
This however is not necessarily consistent with UK common law
- R v Zylsatra, 1995 CanLII 893 (ON CA), 99 CCC (3d) 477, per Trotter JA
- R v St. Jean, 1976 CanLII 1344 (QC CA), (1974) 32 CCC (2d) 438(QCCA), per Kaufman JA
- R v St. Denis, 2010 ONSC 1225 (CanLII), per Gordon J