View source for Lay Opinion Evidence

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderOpinions}}

==General Principles==
Generally, a witness may only testify to observed facts from which the trier-of-fact may draw inferences.<ref>
''R v Collins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f8hn 2001 CanLII 24124] (ON CA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (2:1){{atL|1f8hn|17}}<br>
''WBLI v Abbott and Halibruton'', [2015] 2 SCR 182, [http://canlii.ca/t/ghd4f 2015 SCC 23] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cromwell J}} (7:0){{atL|ghd4f|14}} ("Witnesses are to testify as to the facts which they perceived, not as to inferences -- that is, the opinions that they drew from them.")</ref> 
This includes matters relating to their "knowledge, observation and experience".<ref>
''R v Xiao'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grns5 2016 BCSC 854] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Dley J}}{{atL|grns5|23}}<br>
</ref>
The main rationale for this limitation is that the "ready-formed references are not helpful to the trier of fact and might even be misleading".<ref>
{{supra1|WBLI}}{{atL|ghd4f|14}}<br>
</ref>
The personal belief or opinion by a non-expert is presumptively not admissible.<ref>
''R v Browne and Angus'' (1951), 99 CCC 141 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gdl2h 1951 CanLII 393] (BC CA){{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}} 
</ref>
There are limited exceptions where opinion is permissible.<ref>
''R v Graat'',  [1982] 2 SCR 819, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpcx 1982 CanLII 33] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} (7:0){{atps|835, 837}}<br>
''R v Falkenberg'' (1995), [http://canlii.ca/t/g1w6r 1995 ABCA 27] (CanLII), 95 CCC (3d) 307{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atp|309}} leave ref’d [1995] S.C.C.A. No. 88<br>
</ref>

; Opinion vs Observation
An opinion is simply an "inference from observed fact".<ref>
{{supra1|Collins}}{{atL|1f8hn|17}}</ref>
Accordingly, a mere claim of "that's the guy" in identifying a person is simply an opinion where there is evidence underlying the conclusion given goes to it's weight.<ref>
''R v Le (T.D.)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frj5d 2011 MBCA 83] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atL|frj5d|139}}<br>
Browne and Angus<br>
''R v Smith'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g15gx 1952 CanLII 116] (ON CA), (1952), 103 CCC 58 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|MacKay JA}}<br>
''R v Harrison'' (1950), 99 CCC 96 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gb6t6 1950 CanLII 414] (BC CA){{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v McDonald'' (1951), 101 CCC 78 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gcqt2 1951 CanLII 416] (BC CA){{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}<br> 
''R v Yates'' (1946), 85 CCC 334 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gcr8p 1946 CanLII 230] (BC CA){{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}<br>
''R v Sitar'', (1992), 78 Man.R. (2d) 101{{NOCANLII}}{{Ats-|5 to 6}} (C.A.)<br>
</ref>

There is no blight line between fact and opinion.<ref>
''R v Ilina'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1c13f 2003 MBCA 20] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atL|1c13f|72}}<br>
{{supra1|Graat}}{{atp|835}}<br>
</ref>

There is some distinction to be made between factual observations based on their "knowledge, observation and experience", which amounts to conclusions that are beyond the familiarity of the trier of fact, and actual lay opinion. <ref>
''R v Hamilton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fljvz 2011 ONCA 399] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtL|fljvz|259}} -- telecom engineers testified to cell phone communication towers<br>
{{supra1|Ilina}}{{atsL|1c13f|64| to 66}} - officer testifies to bloody trail suggesting "clean up" marks<br>
''R v Colpitts'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gnc90 2016 NSSC 48] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Coady J}} - fraud investigator testifies to stock manipulation <br>
</ref>

; Where Lay Opinion is Admissible
Lay opinion, being an opinion of a person who is not qualified as an expert, can be admissible in trial where the opinion constitutes a "compendious statement" of the observations of a witness in relation to matters of common experience where no special knowledge is required and the opinion is so close to fact that it is impossible to separate the two. <ref> 
{{supra1|Graat}}<br>
''R v Montague-Mitchell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hvd98 2018 SKCA 78] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards CJ}}{{atL|hvd98|38}} ("lay witnesses may offer opinions where they are 'merely giving a compendious statement of facts that are too subtle and too complicated to be narrated separately and distinctly.' ")
''R v Collins'', (2001), 160 CCC 85 (Ont. CA), [http://canlii.ca/t/1f8hn 2001 CanLII 24124] (ON CA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (2:1)<br>
{{supra1|Ilina}}{{atL|1c13f|80}}<br>
E. G. Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2002), at c. 16, pp. 246-47): ("A “conclusory” opinion may be given by a lay or non-expert witness, as an exception to the general rule, when the opinion constitutes a “compendious statement” of the facts the witness observed if the facts involve matters of common experience and it is difficult to transmit the basis of the opinion.")</ref>

There is no closed list of subjects upon which lay opinion may be given.<ref>
{{supra1|Graat}}{{atp|835}}<br>
{{supra1|Ilina}}{{atL|1c13f|74}}<br>
</ref>

Lay opinion should usually have the following characteristics to be accepted:<ref>
''R v Parada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsz4l 2016 SKCA 102] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Herauf JA}} (3:0){{AtL|gsz4l|26}}<br>
</ref>
# the witness has personal knowledge of observed facts;
# the witness is in a better position than the trier of fact to draw the inference;
# the witness has the necessary experiential capacity to draw the inference; and
# the opinion is a compendious mode of speaking and the witness could not as accurately, adequately, and with reasonable facility describe the facts he or she is testifying about.

{{Reflist|2}}

==Examples of Lay Opinion==
There is an unlimited number of categories of observations that a layperson can testify to.<ref>
''R v Parada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsz4l 2016 SKCA 102] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Herauf JA}} (3:0){{atL|gsz4l|25}}<br>
</ref> 
Lay opinion has been found to be valid in relation to the following:
* the identification of handwriting, persons and things;<ref>
See ''R v Graat'', [1982] 2 SCR 819, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpcx 1982 CanLII 33]{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (7:0)<br>
CEA s. 8<br>
''R v Pitre'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fsm8t 1932 CanLII 69] (SCC), [1933] SCR 69{{perSCC|Smith J}}<br>
''R v Abdi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6hcz 1997 CanLII 4448] (ON CA){{perONCA|Robins JA}} (3:0)</ref> 
* apparent age;<ref> {{supra1|Graat}}</ref>  
* the bodily plight or condition of a person, including death and illness;<ref> Graat<br>
</ref>  
* the emotional state or state of mind of a person (e.g. distressed, angry, aggressive, affectionate or depressed, state of shock, fear, happiness); <ref> 
{{supra1|Graat}}<br>
See Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (2012 ed), Toronto: Carswell: 2012{{atp|462}}<br>
''R v Falkenberg'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1w6r 1995 ABCA 27] (CanLII), (1995), 95 CCC (3d) 307, 165 A.R. 16 (Alta. C.A.){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|g1w6r|7}}</ref>
* the condition of things—e.g. worn, shabby, used or new;  <ref> 
{{supra1|Graat}}</ref> 
* certain questions of value;<ref> {{supra1|Graat}}</ref> 
* estimates of speed and distance;<ref> {{supra1|Graat}}<br></ref>
* visual identification of persons in videos; <ref>
''R v Leaney'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft3h 1989 CanLII 28] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 393{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}<br>
''R v Nikolovski'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr59 1996 CanLII 158] (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 1197{{perSCC|Cory J}}</ref>
* visual identification of persons in pictures;<ref>
''R v Richards'', [1964] 2 CCC 19 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/htv2q 1963 CanLII 678] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Bird JA}}</ref>
* visual identification of persons in court;<ref>
''R v Izzard'' (1990) 54 CCC (3d) 252 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd876 1990 CanLII 11055] (ON CA){{perONCA|Morden JA}}</ref>
* visual identification of vehicles; <ref>
''R v Assoun'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1n38p 2006 NSCA 47] (CanLII){{TheCourtNSCA}} (3:0)</ref>
* audio identification; <ref>
''R v Williams'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6jw1 1995 CanLII 695] (ON CA), (1995), 98 CCC 160 (Ont.CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}</ref>
* voice identification;<ref>
''R v Grabowski'' (1983), 8 CCC (3d) 78 (QCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/g9dn1 1983 CanLII 3579] (QC CA){{perQCCA|McCarthy JA}}<br>
''R v Murray'' (1916) 27 CCC 247 (ABCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gw6rw 1916 CanLII 363] (AB CA){{perABCA|Beck JA}}</ref>
* identification of a shoe tread, including the type of shoe associated with the tread <ref> 
''R v Hill'' (1986), 32 CCC (3d) 314 (Ont. CA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbgwl 1986 CanLII 4722] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}}<br>
''R v Powell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1pjv5 2006 ABCA 267] (CanLII){{perABCA|Martin JA}}<br>
''R v Lee'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2d8r7 2010 SCC 52] (CanLII), [2010] 3 SCR 99{{TheCourtSCC}} (7:0)<br> 
</ref>
* that blood stains suggest someone tried to "clean up". <ref>
''R v Ilina'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1c13f 2003 MBCA 20] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atL|1c13f|64}} onward
</ref>

A lay opinion that is formed from observations in close association and over a long period of time should be given considerable weight.<ref>
see Re: ''Price v Spence'', [1946] O.W.N. 80, 2 DLR 592, [http://canlii.ca/t/gwbwq 1945 CanLII 339] (ON CA){{perONCA|Laidlaw JA and Roach JA}} (2:1){{atL|gwbwq|17}}</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}
===Police Evidence===
Police as a class of witnesses are often permitted to give opinion evidence as to their observations.<ref>
''R v Lee'', [http://canlii.ca/t/27scf 2010 ABCA 1] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1)<br>
''R v Ilina'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1c13f 2003 MBCA 20] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Handwriting Evidence===
{{seealso|Real Evidence}}

It is permissible lay opinion evidence for a witness to testify to identifying handwriting.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Abdi|6hcz|1997 CanLII 4448 (ON CA)|116 CCC (3d) 385, 34 OR (3d) 499}}{{perONCA|Robins JA}}
</ref>

A competent witness to testify to handwriting should have "frequently seen the person's handwriting" or has engaged in "regular correspondence" with the person.<Ref>
''Pitre v The King'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fsm8t 1932 CanLII 69 (SCC)], [1933] SCR 69 ("It is not necessary to prove handwriting by an expert witness, but it must be established that the witness has in some way become competent to testify as to the handwriting; and it has been laid down that a witness may be competent by reason of having become familiar with a person’s handwriting through a regular correspondence or through having frequently seen the person’s handwriting. On the bare facts established here, I do not think the learned trial judge erred in refusing to accept the witness as one competent to testify as to the appellant’s handwriting.")
</ref>

{{quotation2|
; Handwriting comparison
8. Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting those writings, may be submitted to the court and jury as proof of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute.
<br>
R.S., c. E-10, s. 8.
|[{{CEASec|8}} CEA]
|{{NoteUpCEA|8}}
}}

A judge is permitted to engage in his own comparison of handwriting. He does not need to give notice to defence before engaging in analysis.<ref>
''R v Cunsolo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6s86 2014 ONCA 364] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0){{atsL|g6s86|40| to 44}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Identity]]
* [[Expert Evidence]]