View source for Admissions of Fact

{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderEvidence}}
==General Principles==
Factual admissions are made under s. 655.
{{quotation2|
; Admissions at trial
655 Where an accused is on trial for an indictable offence, he or his counsel may admit any fact alleged against him for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof.
<br>
R.S., c. C-34, s. 582.
|[{{CCCSec|655}} CCC]
|{{NoteUp|655}}
}}

Though the language refers to indictable offences, it is accepted that this applies to summary convictions as well under s. 795.

; Making an Admission
When a factual admission is made pursuant to s. 655 it is for the Crown to state the facts. It is not open to the accused to frame the Crown's allegations so as to conform to his own purpose and then require the Crown to admit it.<ref>
''R v Castellani'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1xd5m 1969 CanLII 57] (SCC), [1970] SCR 910{{perSCC|Cartwright CJ}} (9:0){{atp|315}}<br> 
''R v Dearborn'' (1991), [http://canlii.ca/t/gdn9h 1991 CanLII 7567] (SK QB), 91 Sask. R. 112{{perSKQB|Hrabinsky J}} affirmed, (1992) 97 Sask. R. 282, [http://canlii.ca/t/gd3fd 1992 CanLII 8215] (SK CA){{perSKCA|Tallis JA}}<br>
''R v Curry'' (1980), 38 N.S.R. (2d) 575 (NSCA){{NOCANLII}}{{at-|26}}<br>
''R v Falconer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gp1bx 2016 NSCA 22] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (3:0){{atL|gp1bx|45}} ("Once tendered, formal admissions under s. 655 of the Criminal Code are conclusive for the trier of fact.  Subject to relief being granted from the consequence of the admission, the fact admitted is conclusively established.  It is not open to challenge.")<br>
</ref>

There is no obligation upon the Crown to accept any admission framed by the accused.<ref>
{{supra1|Castellani}}
</ref>

A factual admission can be made by counsel in court. Counsel can state for example that: “I admit that the accused did X. I admit that when he did that act, he knew Y. I admit that at that time, the accused thought or intended Z.”

The accused can waive "strict compliance" with the rule of evidence that requires sworn testimony. Instead the accused can permit the "taking of their evidence by admitting what their evidence would be as regards certain facts if those witnesses were called".<ref>
''R v Matheson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1z1g5 1981 CanLII 202] (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 214{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (7:0){{atp|217}}
</ref>

; Form of Admission
This form of admission is “proper and sufficient” for findings of fact by the court under s. 655 and remove the need to adduce evidence on those issues. <ref>
''R v Miljevic'', [http://canlii.ca/t/298h2 2010 ABCA 115] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{atL|298h2|18}}<br> 
See also McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence pp. 22-2 to 22-5, 22-9 to 22-11 (4th ed. 2009); 9 Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law 822-24 (Chadbourne ed. 1981)<br>
''R v Haimour'', [http://canlii.ca/t/27g9t 2010 ABQB 7] (CanLII){{perABQB|Ouellette J}}{{atL|27g9t|27}}<br>
''R v Picariello'', [1923] 2 DLR 706, 716 (SCC), (1923), 39 CCC 229, [http://canlii.ca/t/gc478 1923 CanLII 536] (SCC){{Plurality}} <br>
''R v Castellani'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1xd5m 1969 CanLII 57] (SCC), [1970] SCR 310{{perSCC|Cartwright CJ}} (9:0){{atp|315-17}} (SCR)<br> 
''R v Park'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1txdg 1981 CanLII 56] (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 64{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (9:0) at 73<br> 
''R v Matheson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1z1g5 1981 CanLII 202] (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 214{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (7:0) at 217<br> 
''R v Fertal'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2d9ns 1993 ABCA 277] (CanLII), (1993) 145 A.R. 225{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atsL|2d9ns|7| to 9}}<br> 
''R v Proctor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npk2 1992 CanLII 2763] (MB CA), (1992) 5 Man. R. (2d) 217, 69 CCC (3d) 436, 447 (C.A.){{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}<br>
''R v Fong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dbp5 1994 ABCA 267] (CanLII), (1994) 157 A.R. 73 (C.A.){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atsL|2dbp5|6| to 8}}<br>
''R v Desjardins'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1dxrx 1998 CanLII 6149] (BC CA), (1998) 110 BCAC 33{{perBCCA|Newbury JA}} (3:0){{atL|1dxrx|18}}<br>
</ref>

An agreed statement of fact should be "clear, unambiguous, precise and unequivocal before acceptance by the court".<ref>
''R v Asp'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fnnmk 2011 BCCA 433] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} (3:0) {{atL|fnnmk|40}}
</ref>

Formal admissions cannot be made until there has been an allegation put against them. <ref>
{{supra1|Castellani}}</ref>

; Effect of a Agreement Statement of Facts
If the Crown and Defence put forward evidence by submission that constitutes an agreed statement of facts, then it should be accepted by the trial judge as “conclusive of the admitted facts".<ref> 
''R v Baksh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l5md 2005 CanLII 24918], (2005), 199 CCC (3d) 201 (Ont. S.C.J.){{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|1l5md|84}} (("An admission validly made in the context of s. 655 of the Code is an acknowledgement that some fact alleged by the prosecution is true. Such an admission dispenses with proof of that fact by testimony or ordinary exhibit and the accused is not entitled to set up competing contradictory evidence in an attempt to disprove the judicial or formal admission. In other words, the formal admission is conclusive of the admitted fact...")
</ref>

If the accused makes an admission of fact, the Crown should not be allowed to refuse to accept it and then lead evidence on the issue. Once admitted, it is no longer a issue at trial.<ref> 
''R v Proctor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npk2 1992 CanLII 2763] (MB CA), (1992) 69 CCC (3d) 436{{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}{{atp|447}} (“I do not think that Crown is entitled to refuse acceptance where its purpose in doing so to keep an issue alive artificially ...but if the accused is willing to make them, the Crown should not be allowed to gain entry for prejudicial evidence by refusing to accept the admissions.”)</ref>
The evidence covering the admitted facts and therefore must be excluded as irrelevant.<ref>
''R v Handy'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51r6 2002 SCC 56] (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 908{{perSCC|Binnie J}}<br>
''R v Clermont'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftsd 1986 CanLII 26] (SCC), [1986] 2 S. C. R. 131{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (7:0){{atp|136}}<br>
''R v Bosley'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p797 1992 CanLII 2838] (ON CA), (1992), 18 C. R. (4th) 347 (Ont. C. A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atp|360}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Proctor|1npk2|1992 CanLII 2763 (MB CA)|, (1992), 69 CCC (3d) 436 (Man. C. A.)}}{{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}{{atp|447}}<br>
</ref>

Once an admission is made, it becomes part of the record. Unless changed by consent, it is "not easily disturbed"
{{CanLIIR|Prince|hspjs|2017 BCSC 2642 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Ker J}}{{atL|hspjs|26}}


The process used to generate an agreed statement of fact does not satisfy threshold reliability to be admissible for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to hearsay.<ref>
[[Principled Exception to Hearsay]]
</ref>

; Consequence of Contradictory vica voce Evidence
Where a witness testifies to a matter that appears to contradict the agreement of facts, the Crown would then be required to call evidence on the points in issue.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Coburn|g961v|1982 CanLII 3715 (ON CA)|, 66 CCC (2d) 463}}{{perONCA-H|Howland CJ}}{{atL|g961v|13}}
{{supra1|Prince}}{{atsL|hspjs|20| to 21}}
{{CanLIIR|Randhawa|jb9qs|2020 BCPC 205 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Rideout J}}{{atL|jb9qs|138}}<Br>
</ref>

; Withdraw of Admission
Once an admission of fact is made it cannot be withdrawn without leave of the court.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|RAH|h3cp9|2017 PECA 5 (CanLII)}}{{perPEICA|Mitchell JA}} (3:0){{atL|h3cp9|51}} citing Sopinka, Lederman and Bryan: The Law of Evidence in Canada, 4th Ed. (LexisNexis Canada Inc., at §19.2)<br>
</ref>

; Deviation From Admission
It is an error of law for a trial judge to depart from any formal admission without first notifying counsel and giving them an opportunity to make submissions on the issue.<ref>
''R v Duong'', {{CanLII|j21jv|2019 BCCA 299}}{{atL|j21jv||52}}
</ref>

; Subsequent Use of Admission
An admission under s. 655 can be used as an ordinary admission in a subsequent hearing for a mistrial.<ref>
{{supra1|Baksh}}{{AtL|1l5md|118}}
</ref>

; Contrast with Admission of Law
An admission of law or mixed fact and law is not binding upon a judge.<ref>
{{supra1|RAH}}{{atL|h3cp9|53}}<br>
''Serra v Serra'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22bz6 2009 ONCA 105] (CanLII){{perONCA|Blair JA}} (3:0)<br>
</ref>
Such an admission can be withdrawn at any time, including on appeal.<ref>
{{supra1|RAH}}{{atL|h3cp9|53}}<br>
''R v Baty'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1gcj 1958 CanLII 93] (ONCA){{perONCA|Morden JA}} (3:0)<br>
Highly v CPR, [http://canlii.ca/t/gw927 1929 CanLII 410] (ON CA), [1930] 1 DLR 630{{perONCA|Fisher JA}} (4:0) <br>
</ref>

Admission of law includes opinion of whether evidence satisfies the legal requirements of legislative provision.<ref>
eg. {{supra1|RAH}}{{atsL|h3cp9|51| to 53}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Youth==
{{quotation2|
; Admissions
149 (1) A party to any proceedings under this Act may admit any relevant fact or matter for the purpose of dispensing with proof of it, including any fact or matter the admissibility of which depends on a ruling of law or of mixed law and fact.
<br>
; Other party may adduce evidence
(2) Nothing in this section precludes a party to a proceeding from adducing evidence to prove a fact or matter admitted by another party.
|[{{YCJASec|149}} YCJA]
|{{NoteUpYCJA|149|1}}
}}

==See Also==
* [[Guilty Plea#Agreed and Disputed Facts at Sentence]]
* [[Admissions and Confessions]]
* [[Procedure for Young Accused#Guilty Plea]]
* [[Precedent - Shortcut to Proof]]