View source for Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence

{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderEvidence}}

==General Principles==
{{seealso|Acceptance of Evidence}}
Section 24(2){{CCRF}} is a remedial power to enforce the breach of other enumerated rights.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Terry|1fr9t|1996 CanLII 199 (SCC)|[1996] 2 SCR 207}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}} (9:0){{atp|24}} ("... s. 24(2) is not an independent source of Charter rights; it is merely a remedy for their breach.")
</ref>
It states the following:
{{quotation1|
24<br>
; Enforcement
...
; Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute		
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
| [http://canlii.ca/t/ldsx#sec24 CCRF]
}}

Even where evidence is relevant, material, and admissible, the court retains a discretionary ability to exclude evidence where the probative value of the evidence is exceeded by its prejudicial effect or where necessary to ensure trial fairness. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cloutier|1mm32|1979 CanLII 25 (SCC)|[1979] 2 SCR 709, 48 CCC (2d) 1, 12 CR (3d) 10}}{{perSCC|Pratte J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1fs9x|1992 CanLII 79 (SCC)|[1992] 2 SCR 915, 75 CCC (3d) 257, 15 CR (4th) 133}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Moose|1j3h8|2004 MBCA 176 (CanLII)|24 CR (6th) 246, 190 Man. R. (2d) 156}}{{perMBCA|Huband JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|MF|25882|2009 ONCA 617 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Simmons JA}}){{atL|25882|25}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 9 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}{{atps|20-21}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Harrer|1frhf|1995 CanLII 70 (SCC)|[1995] 3 SCR 562}}{{perSCC|La Forest J}}{{atsL|1frhf|23| to 24}}, {{atsL-np|1frhf|41| and 42}} - common law permits exclusion of all evidence that renders trial unfair<br>
{{CanLIIRP|White|1fqlm|1999 CanLII 689 (SCC)|[1999] 2 SCR 417 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1fqlm|86}}<br>
</ref>
The discretionary power derives from both the common law and s. 24(1) of the Charter.<ref>
see {{CanLIIR|Spackman|24nt8|2009 CanLII 37920 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Trafford J}}
</ref>
The common-law power is protected under s. 11(d) of the charter which protects the right to a fair hearing.<ref>
{{supra1|Harrer}}{{atsL|1frhf|23| and 24}}</ref>

The law is primarily inclusionary and will tend to admit all evidence that is logically probative of some fact in issue, subject to the rules of exclusion and exception. Where it does not fall into an exclusion or exception issues with the evidence only goes to weight.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Corbett|1ftgm|1988 CanLII 80 (SCC)|41 CCC (3d) 385}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}}</ref>

The discretionary power allows for a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the value of the evidence to determine the case correctly "is worth the cost of its introduction to the litigation process."<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Cyr|fvfcv|2012 ONCA 919 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atsL|fvfcv|96|, 97}}<br>
{{supra1|Mohan}}{{atps|20-21}}<br>
</ref>
This will involve considering the prejudicial effect including the misleading effect and time consumption.<ref>
{{supra1|Cyr}}{{atL|fvfcv|97}}
</ref>

; Burden of Proof
The onus is upon the party seeking to exclude evidence that has already been established as admissible.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jack|1npk3|1992 CanLII 2764 (MB CA)|70 CCC (3d) 67, 15 W.C.B. (2d) 92 (Man. C.A.)}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atp|86}}</ref>

; Factors
To weigh probative value against prejudicial effect, it has been proposed to consider:
<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Sand|5bsl|2003 MBQB 76 (CanLII)}}{{perMBQB|Menzies J}}{{atL|5bsl|29}}</ref>
# Probative value:
## the strength of the evidence
## the extent to which it supports the inferences sought to be made, and;
## the extent to which the matters it tends to prove are at issue in the proceedings.
#Prejudicial effect: 
## how discreditable it is;
##the extent to which it may support an inference of guilt based solely on bad character;
##the extent to which it may confuse issues, and;
##the accused’s ability to respond to it.

; Jury Setting
In a jury setting, the judge must be scrupulous to only permit evidence that is "worthy of jury consideration" and "not whether the jury should accept and act upon the evidence."<ref>
{{supra1|Cyr}}{{atL|fvfcv|98}} citing {{CanLIIR|Abbey|259rl|2009 ONCA 624 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atL|259rl|89}}<br>
</ref>

; Non-jury Setting
In non-jury settings, the judge need not be as scrupulous. The judge is performing a gate-keeping function and so is capable of distinguishing prejudicial evidence. It is unreasonable that the judge is prejudiced from merely hearing evidence.<ref>
see e.g. {{CanLIIR|Virani|frdwp|2012 ABCA 155 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|frdwp|13| to 14}}<br>
{{CanLIIRC|TG v Nova Scotia (Community Services)|fr5fk|2012 NSCA 43 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Fichaud JA}}{{atL|fr5fk|75}} leave to SCC denied<br>
</ref>

Where prejudices exist the judges are capable of self-warning of the risks of the evidence. This will often be considered sufficient precaution.<ref>
see {{CanLIIR|Blea|fpw8w|2012 ABCA 41 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|fpw8w|49}}<br> 
</ref>
A judge who is satisfied he are not prejudice should be taken at his word.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|O’Brien|flrr6|2011 SCC 29 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 SCR 485}}{{perSCC|Abella J}} (5:2){{atL|flrr6|18}} (“The trial judge was entitled to be taken at his word.”)<br>
</ref>

; Procedure
The court should consider the discretion to exclude evidence as follows:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|RP|g15dl|1990 CanLII 6921 (ONSC)| (1990), 58 CCC (3d) 334 (Ont. H.C.)}}{{perONSC|Sutherland J}} at 347</ref>
#The judge must determine the probative value of the evidence assessing its tendency to prove a fact in issue in the case including the credibility of the witnesses.
#The judge must determine the prejudicial effect of the evidence because of its tendency to prove matters which are not in issue... or because of the risk that the jury may use the evidence improperly to prove a fact in issue.
#The judge must balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect having regard to the importance of the issues for which the evidence is legitimately offered against the risk that the jury will use it for other improper purposes, taking into account the effectiveness of any limiting instructions.

; Appellate Review
The exercise of this discretion requires substantial deference on appeal absent error in principle.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|CRB|1fswk|1990 CanLII 142 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}} (5:2){{atp|733}}<br>
{{supra1|Cyr}}{{atL|fvfcv|103}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|DD|525r|2000 SCC 43 (CanLII)}}{{atsL|525r|12| to 13}}{{perSCC|Major J}}
</ref>
The weighing between the probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence is accorded "a good deal of deference" and "absent error in principle", the decision should not be disturbed.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Shearing|51rb|2002 SCC 58 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Binnie J}} (7:2){{atL|51rb|73}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

== Probative Value ==
The probative value of evidence will depend on the "context in which it is proffered".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Araya|ggncg|2015 SCC 11 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Rothstein J}}{{atL|ggncg|31}}
</ref>
A judge should look at the "degree or extent the evidence will prove the fact(s) in issue".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Clyke|j02gs|2019 NSSC 137 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{atL|j02gs|45}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Pascoe|6hq3|1997 CanLII 1413 (ONCA)| (1997), 113 CCC (3d) 126 (OCA)}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atsL|6hq3|41| to 45}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Farouk|j226q|2019 ONCA 662}}{{perONCA|Harvison Young JA}}{{atL|j226q|32}} ("The probative value of evidence is a function of the extent to which it tends to prove an issue at trial.")<br>
</ref>

Determining the probative value of evidence includes considering the "frailties of the evidence, the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from it and the availability of other evidence to prove the same fact."<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Leitch and Jno-Baptiste|fp73k|2011 ONSC 2597 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Trafford J}} citing {{supra1|Pascoe}}</ref>
It also involves some weighing of evidence".<ref>
{{supra1|Farouk}}{{atL|j226q|32}}(" This requires the trial judge to engage in a preliminary weighing of evidence. ")
</ref>
The judge must "identify the issue in question and the strength of the inference sought to be drawn from the evidence, in light of the reliability of the evidence".<ref>
{{supra1|Farouk}}{{atL|j226q|32}}
</ref>

Probative value concerns the weight put on evidence and ''not'' its admissibility.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Morris|1lpds|1983 CanLII 28 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}} (4:3){{atps|99-100}} (CCC){{atps|192-3}} (SCR) - cites example of documents of heroine trade found in accused's residence</ref>

Probative value includes considering its reliability.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Cyr|fvfcv|2012 ONCA 919 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}} (3:0){{atL|fvfcv|97}}</ref>

The reliability factor is particularly important when considering expert evidence.<ref>
{{ibid1|Cyr}}{{atL|fvfcv|97}} citing {{supra1|Mohan}}{{Atp|21}}<br>
</ref>

Post-offence conduct of interference with witnesses will generally be found to be probative of guilt.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Tran|4v8j|2001 NSCA 2 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Bateman JA}} (3:0){{atL|4v8j|27}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Pillay|1h930|2004 CanLII 9962 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Wein J}}{{atL|1h930|21}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

== Prejudicial Effect==
Although the first rule of evidence is to admit all relevant evidence there are certain types of relevant evidence that should not be admitted as it will have a prejudicial effect on the fairness of the trial.  It is said that there are three grounds of excluding evidence on the basis of it prejudice: "moral", "logical", and "time". 

Prejudice is not simply evidence that is harmful to the defence case, but rather it is evidence that will create unfairness by misuse, over consumption of time, or distraction/confusion of issues. The impact will effect "fairness and the integrity of the proceedings"<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Seaboyer|1fskf|1991 CanLII 76 (SCC)|[1991] 2 SCR 577, 66 CCC (3d) 321 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}} (7:2){{atp|390}} (CCC)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Collins|1f8hn|2001 CanLII 24124 (ONCA)|160 CCC (3d) 85, 150 O.A.C. 220 (Ont. C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}{{atL|1f8hn|19}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Tran|4v8j|2001 NSCA 2 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Bateman JA}} (3:0){{atL|4v8j|28}} - the fact that the evidence suggests guilt does not make it prejudicial<br>
</ref>

All judges have a discretion to exclude any evidence on the basis that its prejudicial effect will out-weigh the probative value.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|(1994) 29 CR (4th) 243 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}</ref>

Where evidence is relevant to one count but irrelevant and possibly prejudicial to another count, the court may still admit the evidence but provide a limiting instruction to the jury on the limited use of the evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cote|5b4n|2003 NBCA 38 (CanLII)|176 CCC (3d) 89}}{{perNBCA|Drapeau CJ}}</ref>

When the evidence is called by the defence the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect is weighed further in the side of admission. A judge should only exclude evidence where the prejudicial effect "substantially outweighs" the probative value.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Shearing|51rb|2002 SCC 58 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Binnie J}} (7:2)<br>
{{supra1|Seaboyer}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Clarke|1v98k|1998 CanLII 14604 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}<br>
</ref>

When dealing with a jury we must presume that limiting instructions and cautions will be followed and the evidence will be "confined within its proper bounds".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Cyr|fvfcv|2012 ONCA 919 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|fvfcv|99}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Corbett|1ftgm|1988 CanLII 80 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} (6:1){{atps|692-693}}<br>
</ref>

In review, the absence of objection will be a factor in considering if the evidence is significantly prejudicial.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jaw|25qz1|2009 SCC 42 (CanLII)|[2009] 3 SCR 26}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (7:2){{atL|25qz1|44}}, citing {{CanLIIR|Jacquard|1fr4h|1997 CanLII 374 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atsL|1fr4h|37| to 38}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Daley|1v5dr|2007 SCC 53 (CanLII)|[2007] 3 SCR 523}}{{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{atL|1v5dr|58}}<br>
</ref>

The forms of prejudicial evidence that should not be admitted was categorized as follows:<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Frimpong|fx338|2013 ONCA 243 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Burton|gwqc7|2017 NSSC 3 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Arnold J}}{{atL|gwqc7|55}}<br>
</ref>
# It threatens the fairness of the trial;
# It cannot be adequately tested and challenged through cross-examination and the other means available in the adversarial process; or
# There is a real risk that the jury will misuse or be unable to properly assess the evidence regardless of the trial judge’s instructions.


{{reflist|2}}

==Moral and Logical Prejudice==
First, there is evidence of ''moral prejudice'' which has the potential of creating outrage in the jury and could influence them to make their decision based on emotion. For example, a jury may get the urge to punish an accused for past bad acts even though they are not at issue in the trial. Second, there are ''logical prejudices'' that suggest to the jury to make improper inferences, such as relating the accused race with a particular disposition. 

In a non-jury setting, concerns of reasoning prejudice and moral prejudice are lessened.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|DeKock|23zn7|2009 ABCA 225 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|23zn7|33| to 37}}, {{atsL-np|23zn7|43| to 45}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|TB|22m15|2009 ONCA 177 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Borins JA}}{{atsL|22m15|26| to 30, 33}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Blea|fpw8w|2012 ABCA 41 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|fpw8w|48}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Time Consumption==
Prejudice arises from evidence that consumes too much time and resources. The trier-of-fact should not have their time wasted with minor evidence that will waste their time and confuse them from the real issues. 

The time consumption should be commensurate to its value.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Cyr|fvfcv|2012 ONCA 919 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|fvfcv|97}}
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Trial Fairness==
There is common law authority to exclude relevant and material evidence where it would render the proceedings unfair.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Harrer|1frhf|1995 CanLII 70 (SCC)|[1995] 3 SCR 562}}{{perSCC|La Forest J}}{{AtsL|1frhf|21|, 23}}, {{atsL-np|1frhf|41|, and 42}}<br> 
{{CanLIIR|White|1fqlm|1999 CanLII 689 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1fqlm|86}}<br>
</ref>
This power is ingrained in section 11(d) of the Charter.<ref>
{{supra1|Harrer}}{{AtsL|1frhf|23| to 24}}</ref>
This can involve either excluding the evidence or simply limiting its use.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Al-Shammari|gst8z|2016 ONCA 614 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Juriansz JA}}{{AtL|gst8z|39}} - judge limited use of prior statement in cross examination to credibility assessment only and not truth of its contents<br>
</ref>

The conduct of the trial, including the admission of evidence, should "not result in the trial being unfair because the accused has been denied a full opportunity to prepare his case, challenge and answer the Crown’s case." <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Albright|1ftlz|1987 CanLII 26 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 383}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atL|1ftlz|26}}</ref>

When considering hearsay tendered by accused the judge may relax the rules of admissibility in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This preferred treatment is due to the liberty interests at stake.<ref>
Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, Sixth Edition{{atp|118}}</ref>

An accused is not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Khan|51xt|2001 SCC 86 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Arbour J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cai|fslbt|2012 ABCA 157 (CanLII)|[2002] AJ No 1521 (C.A.)}}{{perABCA|Côté JA}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

===Crown Splitting its Case===
{{seealso|Trial Process#Reply or Rebuttal}}
As a general rule, the Crown will not be permitted to "split its case". It must "produce and enter in its own case all the clearly relevant evidence it has, or that it intends to rely upon, to establish its case".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Krause|1ftr1|1986 CanLII 39 (SCC)|29 CCC(3d) 385}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}}
{{CanLIIRP|Drake|g7c6d|1970 CanLII 577 (SKQB)|1 CCC (2d) 396}}{{perSKQB|MacPherson J}}, at 202<br>
</ref>

This rule should be applied to evidence that is "clearly relevant-not marginally, minimally or doubtfully relevant".<ref>
{{ibid1|Drake}}{{atp|202}}
</ref>

This will sometimes be raised to prohibit the Crown from cross-examining a defence witness or the accused on a prior statement.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIR|RL|1vbf8|2002 CanLII 49356 (ONCA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Manner of Excluding Evidence==

===Editing Recorded Statements===
It is not always the case that the entirety of the evidence being admitted will be excluded. Statements—written, audio or video recorded—often include a combination of admissible and excludable evidence. The judge must then edit out the offending portions before it can be admitted into evidence.

It is the judge's discretion whether to edit out portions of a statement as irrelevant or prejudicial against a co-accused.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Sidhu|fr9vv|2011 ONSC 4577 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Baltman J}}, aff’d, [http://canlii.ca/t/g20sn 2013 ONCA 719] (CanLII){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}{{atL|g20sn|8}}<br>
</ref>

The judge is permitted to edit out probative evidence where the prejudicial effect is greater.<ref>
{{ibid1|Sidhu}}{{atL|fr9vv|8}}<br>
</ref>

Editing "must not change the meaning of the statement in a material manner" through removal of an inculpatory or exculpatory evidence.<ref>
{{ibid1|Sidhu}}{{atL|fr9vv|8}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Other Powers to Exclude Evidence==
* [[Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter|Exclusion of Evidence]] under s. 24(2) of the Charter
* [[Case Management|Trial Management Power]] - judges also have the power to exclude evidence under its authority over trial management <ref>
{{CanLIIR|Spackman|fvf9n|2012 ONCA 905 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|fvf9n|104}}</ref>
* [[Crown Duty to Disclose|Disclosure]] -  exclusion of evidence can be used as a remedy for late disclosure 
{{reflist|2}}

==Subject-matters of Exclusionary Evidence==

===Alternate Suspect Evidence and Inadequate Investigation Defence===
* [[Alternative Suspect Evidence]]

===Similar Fact Evidence===
* [[Similar Fact Evidence]]