View source for Relevance and Materiality

==Relevance==
Relevancy is evidence that tends, "as a matter of logic and human experience", to make a proposition more likely to be true.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|J-LJ|5246|2000 SCC 51 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 600}}{{perSCC|Binnie J}} ("Evidence is relevant “where it has some tendency as a matter of logic and human experience to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely than that proposition would appear to be in the absence of that evidence” (D. M. Paciocco and L. Stuesser, The Law of Evidence (1996), at p. 19).")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Arp|1fqq7|1998 CanLII 769 (SCC)|[1998] 3 SCR 339}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
</ref>

Relevance is "relative to" and must be assessed in context of (a) "the case as a whole" and (b) "the positions of counsel".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}} at para 51
</ref>

Evidence must be relevant before it can be admissible, irrelevant evidence must be excluded. <ref>
''Hollington v Hewthorn & Co. Ltd.'', [1943] K.B. 587 (CA){{atp|594}} (“all evidence that is relevant to an issue is admissible, while all that is irrelevant is excluded”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|R v Cloutier|1mm32|1979 CanLII 25 (SCC)|48 CCC (2d) 1 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Pratte J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Zeolkowski|1ft57|1989 CanLII 72 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 1378, 50 CCC (3d) 566}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}<br>
</ref>
Any relevant evidence will be admissible unless otherwise excludable for legal or policy-based reasons.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Morris|1lpds|1983 CanLII 28 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atp|201}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Headley|hvd6q|2018 ONSC 5818 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Barnes J}}{{atL|hvd6q|6}}<br>
</ref>

Relevancy requires that there be a nexus between facts. The evidence should permit an inference that if one fact exists the other must as well.<ref>
{{supra1|Cloutier}}</ref> 
Relevance is "assessed in the context of the entire case and the positions of counsel.  It requires a determination whether, as a matter of human experience and logic, the existence of a particular fact, directly or indirectly, makes the existence or non-existence of a material fact more probable than it would be otherwise".<ref> 
{{supra1|Cloutier}}{{atp|27}} and referenced in Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence, 2010, (Thomson Carswell: Toronto, 2008) at Section 3.0 <br>
{{CanLIIR|Sims|1dcg4|1994 CanLII 1298 (BC CA)|87 CCC (3d) 402}}{{perBCCA|Wood JA}}{{atps|420-27}} - relevance determined by the context of the entire case and taking into account Crown and defence<br>
</ref>

Certain evidence does not cease to be relevant or become irrelevant simply because it can support more than one inference. <ref>
{{CanLIIR|Underwood|5fff|2002 ABCA 310 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Conrad JA}}{{atL|5fff|25}}</ref>

Relevance is sometimes divided into 1) logical relevance and 2) legal relevance.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}</ref> 
Logical relevance refers to the connection between two facts. 

; Logical Relevance
For something to be logically relevant, it is not necessary that the evidence "firmly establish, on any standard, the truth or falsity of a fact in issue".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Arp|1fqq7|1998 CanLII 769 (SCC)|[1998] 3 SCR 339}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fqq7|38}}
</ref>
There is no minimum probative value required for evidence to be relevant.<ref>
{{ibid1|Arp}}{{atL|1fqq7|38}} ("...there is no minimum probative value required for evidence to be relevant.")
</ref>

; Legal Relevance
Legal relevance is the cost/benefit analysis of the admission of evidence on the basis of: <ref>
{{ibid1|Mohan}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Morris|1lpds|1983 CanLII 28 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}} - discusses requirement of "logically probative" evidence</ref>
* the probative value outweighing prejudicial effect;
* the "inordinate amount of time which is not commensurate with its value"; and
* the evidence's "misleading" effect is "out of proportion to its reliability".

All relevant evidence is admissible exception for the discretionary power of the judge to exclude evidence that is unduly prejudicial, misleading, or confusing.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Corbett|1ftgm|1988 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1988] 1 SCR 670, 41 CCC (3d) 385}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}}<br>
{{supra1|Morris}}<br>
See also [[Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence]]</ref>

; Multi-count indictments
Where the accused is charged with multiple counts. The admissibility of evidence towards one count does not mean that it is admissible against other counts.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Headly|hvd6q|2018 ONSC 5818 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Barnes J}}{{atL|hvd6q|6}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brown|1qf07|2007 ONCA 71 (CanLII)|216 CCC (3d) 299}}{{perONCA|Cronk J}}{{atL|1qf07|13}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|F|22cch|2006 NSCA 42 (CanLII)|212 CCC (3d) 134}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}{{atL|22cch|26}}<br>
See also [[Similar Fact Evidence]]
</ref>

; Appellate Review
The relevance of evidence is a question of law and is reviewable on a standard of correctness.<ref>
{{supra1|Mohan}}{{atL|1frt1|18}}</ref>

; Constitution
It has been suggested that the admission of irrelevant evidence is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice found in s. 7 of the Charter.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Hewitt|g9vsb|1986 CanLII 4716 (MB CA)}}{{perMBCA|Huband JA}} ("The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence by virtue of s. 317(1) is surely contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. ")<br>
{{CanLIIR|Guyett|g9nxc|1989 CanLII 7202 (ON CA)}}{{perONCA|Brooke JA}}("It is sufficient to say that I agree with the judgment of the majority in Hewitt that s. 317 goes much farther than the general rules of admissibility and that under it, evidence of bad character can be introduced even if it shows nothing more. To this extent, the section violates the principles of fundamental justice and the guarantee in s. 7 of the Charter. In my opinion, this section cannot be read down.")
</ref>
{{Reflist|2}}

==Materiality==
Evidence must be material to be admissible. Material evidence refers to evidence that contributes to proving a fact that is of consequence to the trial. That is, there must be a relationship between the evidence and a legal issue put to the court.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Gill|gc01b|1987 CanLII 6779 (MB CA)| (1987) 39 CCC (3d) 506 (MBCA)}}{{perMBCA|Huband JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bernardi|htwpg|1974 CanLII 1488 (ON CA)| , 20 CCC (2d) 523 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA-H|Arnup JA}}</ref>
Material evidence can include not only evidence establishing a fact that is necessary to prove an essential element of the case or it can be a fact that refutes or negates an essential element or any other relevant evidence. 

This should be treated separately from the question of admissibility and relevance.<ref>
{{supra1|Bernardi}}, leave to SCC refused
</ref>

As this diagram shows, materiality represents the proximity of a fact to an essential element to be proven as part of the Crown's case. Fact A is material where it supports some Fact B that, if made out, establishes some legal requirement at issue.<br>
[[Image:Materiality.png|750px]]

; Relevancy Limited by Materiality
Relevancy can be chained together establishing a link between several propositions, but they must always link back to establishing or negating a material issue. 

{{Reflist|2}}