Difference between revisions of "Burden of Proof"

From Criminal Law Notebook
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
===Burden of Persuasion===
 
===Burden of Persuasion===
 
A "persuasive burden" is a legal question that asks "how the issue should be decided".<ref>
 
A "persuasive burden" is a legal question that asks "how the issue should be decided".<ref>
''R v Fontaine'', [2004] 1 SCR 702, [http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq 2004 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}}{{at|11}}
+
''R v Fontaine'', [2004] 1 SCR 702, [http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq 2004 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}}{{atL|11|http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 36: Line 36:
 
===Evidentiary Burden===
 
===Evidentiary Burden===
 
An evidential burden is not technically a "burden of proof".<ref>
 
An evidential burden is not technically a "burden of proof".<ref>
''R v Fontaine'' [2004] 1 SCR 702, [http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq 2004 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}}{{at|11}}
+
''R v Fontaine'' [2004] 1 SCR 702, [http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq 2004 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}}{{atL|11|http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
Nor is is a legal question. Rather it is a question of fact.<ref>
 
Nor is is a legal question. Rather it is a question of fact.<ref>
{{ibid1|Fontaine}}{{at|12}}<br>
+
{{ibid1|Fontaine}}{{atL|12|http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
It is the burden to determine "whether an issue should be left to the trier of fact".<ref>
 
It is the burden to determine "whether an issue should be left to the trier of fact".<ref>
{{ibid1|Fontaine}}{{at|11}}<br>
+
{{ibid1|Fontaine}}{{atL|11|http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
An evidentiary burden will arise where there is a defence burden to prove that there is an "[[Air of Reality Test|air of reality]]" for a particular defence to apply.<ref>
 
An evidentiary burden will arise where there is a defence burden to prove that there is an "[[Air of Reality Test|air of reality]]" for a particular defence to apply.<ref>
''R v Evaglok'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd 2010 NWTCA 12] (CanLII){{perNWTCA|Vertes JA}}{{at|25}}<br>
+
''R v Evaglok'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd 2010 NWTCA 12] (CanLII){{perNWTCA|Vertes JA}}{{atL|25|http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
It also arises in a question of whether either party can raise [[Automatism|automatism]] or any other mental illness findings.<ref>
 
It also arises in a question of whether either party can raise [[Automatism|automatism]] or any other mental illness findings.<ref>
{{supra1|Fontaine}}{{at|10}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Fontaine}}{{atL|10|http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
In determining if the evidential burden is satisfied the judge must not "evaluate the quality, weight or reliability of the evidence".<ref>
 
In determining if the evidential burden is satisfied the judge must not "evaluate the quality, weight or reliability of the evidence".<ref>
{{supra1|Fontaine}}{{at|12}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Fontaine}}{{atL|12|http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 61: Line 61:
 
===Tactical Burden===
 
===Tactical Burden===
 
A tactical burden is not a term of law, but rather is descriptive of the nature of the opposing counsel's case.<ref>
 
A tactical burden is not a term of law, but rather is descriptive of the nature of the opposing counsel's case.<ref>
''R v Evaglok'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd 2010 NWTCA 12] (CanLII){{perNWTCA|Vertes JA}}{{at|25}} citing Paciocco, The Law of Evidence (5th ed.){{atp|531}}<br>
+
''R v Evaglok'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd 2010 NWTCA 12] (CanLII){{perNWTCA|Vertes JA}}{{atL|25|http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd}} citing Paciocco, The Law of Evidence (5th ed.){{atp|531}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
A tactical burden exists where the Crown has established a prima facie case such at in order to raise a doubt the defence may need to respond by calling evidence.<ref>
 
A tactical burden exists where the Crown has established a prima facie case such at in order to raise a doubt the defence may need to respond by calling evidence.<ref>
Line 77: Line 77:
  
 
The "might reasonably be true" test arises from the doctrine of recent possession which is based on the premise that the accused risks conviction for certain offences "unless he or she furnishes a plausible explanation".<ref>
 
The "might reasonably be true" test arises from the doctrine of recent possession which is based on the premise that the accused risks conviction for certain offences "unless he or she furnishes a plausible explanation".<ref>
''R v Rattray'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qtpx 2007 ONCA 164] (CanLII){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}{{at|14}}<br>
+
''R v Rattray'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qtpx 2007 ONCA 164] (CanLII){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}{{atL|14|http://canlii.ca/t/1qtpx}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
The "might reasonably be true" test should not be applied in credibility cases "dealing with contradictory evidence...where the presumption of innocence, and none other, applies." The test amounts to "imposing an affirmative obligation on the defence to either introduce evidence disproving guilt...and undermines the presumption of innocence"<ref>
 
The "might reasonably be true" test should not be applied in credibility cases "dealing with contradictory evidence...where the presumption of innocence, and none other, applies." The test amounts to "imposing an affirmative obligation on the defence to either introduce evidence disproving guilt...and undermines the presumption of innocence"<ref>
{{ibid1|Rattray}}{{at|13}}<br>
+
{{ibid1|Rattray}}{{atL|13|http://canlii.ca/t/1qtpx}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 90: Line 90:
 
''Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions'', [1935] AC 462 <br>
 
''Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions'', [1935] AC 462 <br>
 
''R v Appleby'', [1972] SCR 303, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nfms 1971 CanLII 4] (SCC){{perSCC|Ritchie J}}<br>
 
''R v Appleby'', [1972] SCR 303, [http://canlii.ca/t/1nfms 1971 CanLII 4] (SCC){{perSCC|Ritchie J}}<br>
''R v Proudlock'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mktb 1978 CanLII 15] (SCC), [1979] 1 SCR 525{{perSCC|Pigeon J}}{{at|6}}<br>
+
''R v Proudlock'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mktb 1978 CanLII 15] (SCC), [1979] 1 SCR 525{{perSCC|Pigeon J}}{{atL|6|http://canlii.ca/t/1mktb}}<br>
 
''R v Manchuk'', [1938] SCR 341, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttqg 1938 CanLII 6] (SCC){{perSCC|Duff CJ}}{{atp|349}}<br>
 
''R v Manchuk'', [1938] SCR 341, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ttqg 1938 CanLII 6] (SCC){{perSCC|Duff CJ}}{{atp|349}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
Line 106: Line 106:
  
 
Therefore the Crown has the burden of proving all the elements of the offence.<ref>
 
Therefore the Crown has the burden of proving all the elements of the offence.<ref>
''R v Lauer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fkdt0 2011 PECA 5] (CanLII){{perPEICA|Murphy JA}}{{at|73}}</ref>
+
''R v Lauer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fkdt0 2011 PECA 5] (CanLII){{perPEICA|Murphy JA}}{{atL|73|http://canlii.ca/t/fkdt0}}</ref>
 
The onus of proving guilt never switches from the Crown to the accused.<ref>
 
The onus of proving guilt never switches from the Crown to the accused.<ref>
see ''R v Briand'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2bkzb 2010 NLCA 44] (CanLII), (2010), 258 CCC (3d) 416 (N.L.C.A.){{perNLCA|Harrington JA}}</ref>The “accused bears no burden to explain why his accuser made the allegations against him”<ref>see ''R v JCH'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f83d 2011 NLCA 8] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Rowe JA}}{{at|18}}</ref>  
+
see ''R v Briand'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2bkzb 2010 NLCA 44] (CanLII), (2010), 258 CCC (3d) 416 (N.L.C.A.){{perNLCA|Harrington JA}}</ref>The “accused bears no burden to explain why his accuser made the allegations against him”<ref>
 +
see ''R v JCH'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f83d 2011 NLCA 8] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Rowe JA}}{{atL|18|http://canlii.ca/t/2f83d}}</ref>  
  
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 01:34, 13 August 2019

General Principles

The burden of proof indicates who has the responsibility or onus to prove something.

Generally, there are three types of burdens. First, there is the "burden of persuasion" (often called a "legal burden", "primary burden", or "major burden"), which is the requirement to prove the case or disprove the defence. Failure to discharge this burden results in the party losing the case. This type of evidence typically is said to impose a "onus of proof". Second, there is the ""evidential burden" (often called the "secondary burden", "burden of going forward", or "minor burden"), which is the requirement of putting an issue before the court using the available evidence. Finally, there is a "tactical burden", which is not a legal standard, but rather is descriptive of the strength of opposing counsel's case and the implication of what is needed to overcome it.

Waiver of Burden for Admissibility

Opposing counsel may waive any requirements of proof that would necessitate a voir dire. There is "[n]o particular words or formula" that need to be utter "to express the waiver and admission. All that is necessary is that the trial Judge be satisfied that counsel understand the matter and has made an informed decision".[1]

  1. R v Park, 1981 CanLII 56 (SCC), 122 DLR (3d) 1 (SCC), per Dickson J - voluntariness voir dire
    R v C(WB), 2000 CanLII 5659 (ON CA), per Weiler JA, at paras 41 to 44

Burden of Persuasion

A "persuasive burden" is a legal question that asks "how the issue should be decided".[1]

Burden Upon the Accused

Section 11(d) of the Charter allocates the burden of persuasion upon the Crown at all times. The section states:

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;


CCRF

This ultimate burden of proof is one that only applies to the total body of evidence, not each separate piece of evidence.[2]

  1. R v Fontaine, [2004] 1 SCR 702, 2004 SCC 27 (CanLII), per Fish J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq
  2. R v Bouvier, 1984 CanLII 3453 (ON CA), at pp. 264-265 (CCC)(complete citation pending)}("The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to the individual items of evidence, or the separate pieces of evidence which make up the Crown's case, but to the total body of evidence upon which the Crown relies to prove guilt...it applies equally where the case depends upon direct evidence or is made up of both direct and circumstantial evidence. ... a serious misdirection to instruct the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each of the separate pieces of evidence upon which the Crown relies to prove guilt.")
    R v Stewart, (1976) 31 CCC (2d) 497 (SCC), [1977] 2 SCR 748, 1976 CanLII 202 (SCC), per Pigeon J
    R v Morin, [1988] 2 SCR 345, 1988 CanLII 8 (SCC)

Evidentiary Burden

An evidential burden is not technically a "burden of proof".[1] Nor is is a legal question. Rather it is a question of fact.[2] It is the burden to determine "whether an issue should be left to the trier of fact".[3]

An evidentiary burden will arise where there is a defence burden to prove that there is an "air of reality" for a particular defence to apply.[4]

It also arises in a question of whether either party can raise automatism or any other mental illness findings.[5]

In determining if the evidential burden is satisfied the judge must not "evaluate the quality, weight or reliability of the evidence".[6]

  1. R v Fontaine [2004] 1 SCR 702, 2004 SCC 27 (CanLII), per Fish J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq
  2. Fontaine, ibid., at para http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq
  3. Fontaine, ibid., at para http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq
  4. R v Evaglok, 2010 NWTCA 12 (CanLII), per Vertes JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd
  5. Fontaine, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq
  6. Fontaine, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1gzjq

Tactical Burden

A tactical burden is not a term of law, but rather is descriptive of the nature of the opposing counsel's case.[1] A tactical burden exists where the Crown has established a prima facie case such at in order to raise a doubt the defence may need to respond by calling evidence.[2]

This "burden" does not offend the right to a presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter.[3]

  1. R v Evaglok, 2010 NWTCA 12 (CanLII), per Vertes JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/2dkjd citing Paciocco, The Law of Evidence (5th ed.), at p. 531
  2. R v Darrach, [2000] 2 SCR 443, 2000 SCC 46 (CanLII), per Gonthier J
  3. Darrach, ibid.

"Might Reasonably Be True" Test

See also: Weighing Testimony of the Accused and Recent Possession

The "might reasonably be true" test arises from the doctrine of recent possession which is based on the premise that the accused risks conviction for certain offences "unless he or she furnishes a plausible explanation".[1]

The "might reasonably be true" test should not be applied in credibility cases "dealing with contradictory evidence...where the presumption of innocence, and none other, applies." The test amounts to "imposing an affirmative obligation on the defence to either introduce evidence disproving guilt...and undermines the presumption of innocence"[2]

Presumption of Innocence

It is well established at common law that all persons are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence for all charges they are not convicted for.[1]

The Charter also affirms this burden in s. 11(d):

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;


CCRF

An ancillary principle to this right, the Crown must also make out a prima facie case before the accused must respond.[2]

Therefore the Crown has the burden of proving all the elements of the offence.[3] The onus of proving guilt never switches from the Crown to the accused.[4]The “accused bears no burden to explain why his accuser made the allegations against him”[5]

  1. Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462
    R v Appleby, [1972] SCR 303, 1971 CanLII 4 (SCC), per Ritchie J
    R v Proudlock, 1978 CanLII 15 (SCC), [1979] 1 SCR 525, per Pigeon J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1mktb
    R v Manchuk, [1938] SCR 341, 1938 CanLII 6 (SCC), per Duff CJ, at p. 349
  2. R v Dubois, [1985] 2 SCR 350, 1985 CanLII 10 (SCC), per Lamer J, at pp. 357 to 258
  3. R v Lauer, 2011 PECA 5 (CanLII), per Murphy JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fkdt0
  4. see R v Briand, 2010 NLCA 44 (CanLII), (2010), 258 CCC (3d) 416 (N.L.C.A.), per Harrington JA
  5. see R v JCH, 2011 NLCA 8 (CanLII), per Rowe JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/2f83d