Examinations-in-Chief: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:11, 15 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2016. (Rev. # 95616)

< Procedure and Practice
< Trials

General Principle

See also: Examinations and Cross-Examinations

An examination-in-chief or direct examination is where the party calling a witness to give evidence asks the witness questions to elicit evidence.

Rule Against Leading Questions

A leading question is a question that suggests the desired answer.^[1] In general, counsel cannot ask leading questions on of the witness that they call.^[2] Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").^[3]

Rationale

The reason for not allowing leading questions include:^[4]

bias of the witness in favour of the calling party
the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version^[5]
the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.^[6]
a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.^[7]

The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”^[8]

The importance of not leading depends on the circumstances. The rule should be flexible at the least for the sake of expediency.^[9]

Discretion in the "Interests of Justice"

A judge has discretion to allow any leading question where it is "necessary in the interests of justice."^[10]

Exception

It is usually permissible to lead on a number of issues:

introductory or non-controversial matters such as name, address, position, etc.^[11]
for the purpose of identifying persons or things^[12]
where "necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry."^[13]
to allow one witness to contradict another regarding statements made by that other^[14]
where the witness is declared hostile;
where the witness is defective based on age, education, language, mental capacity^[15]
where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion^[16]

A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.^[17]

Consequence of Leading Questions

The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.^[18]

The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court." ^[19] It will often be that the inappropriateness of the question, and so the weight given to the answer, will be assessed in the light of whole circumstances of the case, after subsequent testimony of the witness.^[20]

Objections

Objections should not be made to leading questions unless the question is "critical" to the case.^[21]

The use of leading questions will be tolerated more when for the purpose of a "controlled examination" rather than where is becomes a "cross‑examination for the purpose of discrediting or contradicting" the witness.^[22]

↑ R v Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079, 153 CCC (3d) 225, per Charron JA (3:0), at para 9 ("A leading question is one that suggests the answer.")
↑ Rose, ibid., at para 9 ("It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.")
cf. R v Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, per Lee J, at para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight ( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)
↑ Rose, supra, at para 9
R v W(EM), 2011 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 542, per McLachlin CJ (6:1), at para 9
Nicolls v Kemp (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
↑ Rose, supra, at para 9 ("The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.")
↑ Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396(*no CanLII links)
↑ Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway, ibid.
Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274(*no CanLII links)
Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33
R v Clancey, [1992] O.J. No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) , per Watt J (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
↑ Maves
↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10
↑ Rose, supra, at para 9 ("Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... ")
↑ Rose, supra, at para 9 ("...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...")
↑ Rose, supra, at para 9 ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.") Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA), supra, at 219
R v Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA, at para 23
R v Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, per curiam (3:0), at para 9
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189
Rose, supra, at para 9
↑ Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.), at p. 414, states at common law
↑ Rose, ibid., at para 9 ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")
Muise, supra, at para 23
↑ Delisle, supra
↑ Delisle, supra
↑ Delisle, supra.
↑ Reference Re R v Coffin, 1956 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1956] SCR 191, p. 22
Muise, supra, at para 23
↑ Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA) (UK)
R v Williams, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)(*no CanLII links) see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)
R v Nicholson, 1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII), 129 CCC (3d) 198, per curiam (3:0)
R v Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, per Lee J, at para 45("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")
R v Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII), 547 AR 260, per Allen J, at paras 41 to 57
R v Parkes, [2005] OJ No 937(*no CanLII links) , at para 44
R v Cawthorne, 2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII), 7 CMAR 993, per Zinn JA, at para 62 ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")
S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16
↑ R v Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.), per Lee J, at para 45
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, at pp. 18 - 16
↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, at pp. 18 - 16 (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)
↑ FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed., at p. 42
Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed, at p. 114
↑ R v Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA (3:0), at para 27
R v Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, per curiam (3:0), at para 12

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderTrials}}<!--****-->
+[[fr:Interrogatoires_principaux]]
+{{Currency2|January|2016}}
+{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderTrials}}
 ==General Principle==
-{{seealso|Examinations}}
+{{seealso|Examinations|Cross-Examinations}}
 An examination-in-chief or direct examination is where the party calling a witness to give evidence asks the witness questions to elicit evidence.
 ==Rule Against Leading Questions==
+A leading question is a question that suggests the desired answer.<Ref>
+{{CanLIIRP|Rose|1fbr4|2001 CanLII 24079|153 CCC (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0){{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("A leading question is one that suggests the answer.")
+</ref>
 In general, counsel cannot ask leading questions on of the witness that they call.<ref>
-cf. ''R v Bhardwaj'', [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight
+{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.")<br>
-( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)</ref> Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>
+cf. {{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}} suggests that it only goes to weight
-''R v Rose'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079] (ONCA){{perONCA|Chasrron JA}} (3:0) at 9<br>
+( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)</ref>
-''R v W(EM)'', [2011] 2 SCR 542, [http://canlii.ca/t/flwbv 2011 SCC 31] (CanLII){{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}} (6:1){{at|9}}<br>
+Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>
-Nicolls v Kemp (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|W(EM)|flwbv|2011 SCC 31 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 SCR 542}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}} (6:1){{atL|flwbv|9}}<br>
+''Nicolls v Kemp'' (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
 </ref>
 ; Rationale
-The reason for not allowing leading questions include:<ref>''R v Rose'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079], (2001) 153 CCC (3d) 225 (ONCA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0)</ref>
+The reason for not allowing leading questions include:<ref>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.")</ref>
 *bias of the witness in favour of the calling party
-*the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version<ref>Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA){{NOCANLII}}</ref>
+*the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version<ref>
-*the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.<ref>Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway Co (1913) 6 Alta LR 396{{NOCANLII}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRC-N|Maves v Grand Truck Railways| (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396}}</ref>
-Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274{{NOCANLII}}<br> Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33<br>
+*the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.<ref>
-''R v Clancey'', [1992] O.J.  No. 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}{{perONSC|Watt J}} (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
+{{ibid1|Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRC-N|Connor v Brant| (1914) 31 OLR 274}}<br> Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33<br>
+{{CanLIIR-N|Clancey|, [1992] O.J.  No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Watt J}} (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
 </ref>
-* a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.<ref>Maves</ref> The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>
+* a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.<ref>Maves</ref>
+The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>
 The importance of not leading depends on the circumstances. The rule should be flexible at the least for the sake of expediency.<ref>
-''R v Rose'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079] (ON CA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0)</ref>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... ")</ref>
+; Discretion in the "Interests of Justice"
+A judge has discretion to allow any leading question where it is "necessary in the interests of justice."<ref>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...")
+</ref>
 ; Exception
 It is usually permissible to lead on a number of issues:
 * introductory or non-controversial matters such as name, address, position, etc.<ref>
-Maves v Grand Truck Railways, at 219 (ABCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")
-''R v Muise'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fzhtg 2013 NSCA 81] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}}{{at|23}}<br>
+{{supra1|Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA)}}, at 219 <br>
-''R v Situ'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lgqh 2005 ABCA 275] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0) at para 9<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|Muise|fzhtg|2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Situ|1lgqh|2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII)|200 CCC (3d) 9}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|1lgqh|9}}<br>
 Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189<br>
-{{supra1|Rose}}{{at|9}}</ref>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}</ref>
-* for the purpose of identifying persons or things<ref>Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.) at p. 414, states at common law</ref>
+* for the purpose of identifying persons or things<ref>Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.){{atp|414}}, states at common law</ref>
-* where "necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry."<ref>{{ibid1|Rose}}{{at|9}}<br>
+* where "necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry."<ref>
-{{supra1|Muise}}{{at|23}}<br>
+{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")<br>
+{{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
 </ref>
-* to allow one witness to contradict another regarding statements made by that other<ref>{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
+* to allow one witness to contradict another regarding statements made by that other<ref>
+{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
 * where the witness is declared hostile;
-* where the witness is defective based on age, education, language, mental capacity<ref>{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
+* where the witness is defective based on age, education, language, mental capacity<ref>
-* where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion<ref>{{supra1|Delisle}}.</ref>
+{{supra1|Delisle}}</ref>
+* where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion<ref>
+{{supra1|Delisle}}.</ref>
-A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.<ref>Reference Re ''R v Coffin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22tqn 1956 CanLII 94] (SCC), [1956] SCR 191{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
+A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.<ref>Reference Re {{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (SCC)|[1956] SCR 191}}{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
-{{supra1|Muise}}{{at|23}}<br>
+{{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
 </ref>
 ; Consequence of Leading Questions
-The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.<ref> Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA)
+The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.<ref>
-''R v Williams'', (1982), 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.){{NOCANLII}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
+{{UKCase|Moor v Moor| [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA)}}<br>
-''R v Nicholson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5skh 1998 ABCA 290] (CanLII), (1998), 129 CCC (3d) 198 (Alta. C.A.){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
+{{CanLIIR-N|Williams|, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
-''R v Bhardwaj'', [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}}{{at|45}}("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Nicholson|5skh|1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII)|129 CCC (3d) 198}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
-''R v Gordon-Brietzke'', 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII){{perABPC|Allen J}} at paras 41-57<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
-''R v Parkes'', [2005] OJ No 937{{NOCANLII}} at para. 44<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Gordon-Brietzke|fsfcr|2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII)|547 AR 260}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}{{atsL|fsfcr|41| to 57}}<br>
-''R v Cawthorne'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ghgkg 2015 CMAC 1] (CanLII), ''per'' Zinn JA at para 62 ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
+{{CanLIIR-N|Parkes|, [2005] OJ No 937}}{{at-|44}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Cawthorne|ghgkg|2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII)|7 CMAR 993}}, ''per'' Zinn JA{{atL|ghgkg|62}} ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
 S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16<br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 60: / Line 82: @@
 The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court."
 <ref>
-''R v Bhardwaj'', (2008), [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII), 456 A.R. 313 (Alta. Q.B.){{perABQB|Lee J}}{{at|45}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.)}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}<br>
-MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition at p. 18 - 16<br>
+MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition{{atps|18 - 16}}<br>
 </ref>
 It will often be that the inappropriateness of the question, and so the weight given to the answer, will be assessed in the light of whole circumstances of the case, after subsequent testimony of the witness.<ref>
-MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition at p. 18 - 16 (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)</ref>
+MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition{{atps|18 - 16}} (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)</ref>
 ; Objections
 Objections should not be made to leading questions unless the question is "critical" to the case.<ref>
-FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed. at p. 42<br>
+FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed.{{atp|42}}<br>
-Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed. at p. 114<br>
+Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed{{atp|114}}<br>
 </ref>
 The use of leading questions will be tolerated more when for the purpose of a "controlled examination" rather than where is becomes a "cross‑examination for the purpose of discrediting or contradicting" the witness.<ref>
-''R v Muise'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fzhtg 2013 NSCA 81] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0){{at|27}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRx|Muise|fzhtg|2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0){{atL|fzhtg|27}}<br>
-''R v Situ'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lgqh 2005 ABCA 275] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{at|12}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Situ|1lgqh|2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII)|200 CCC (3d) 9}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|1lgqh|12}}<br>
 </ref>
 {{Reflist|2}}
+==See Also==
+* [[Precedents]]