Corroboration

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2021. (Rev. # 95743)

• < Procedure and Practice
• < Trials

General Principles

Corroborative evidence (also called "confirmatory" or "supportive" evidence) refers to evidence that has the effect of "adding of strength or reinforcement from an independent source for the truth and accuracy of the [witness's] evidence."

No Common Law Requirement for Corroboration

There is no common law rule requiring corroboration in order to convict. A judge can reasonably find guilt based solely on the evidence a single witness.

There is no rule requiring that intoxicated complainants must be corroborated to be relied upon for conviction.

Uncontradicted Testimony

Where the testimony of a witness is uncontradicted, the trier-of-fact may rely on this in their assessment of credibility and reliability, however, need not accept the testimony as fact.

Requirement of Independence

For evidence to be corroborative, it must be independent. Independent evidence may be circumstantial even where it does not meet the Hodge's Rule. It is the independence of the corroborative evidence that makes the evidence "capable of restoring the trier’s faith in the relevant aspects of the witness’ account."

Analysis of Corroboration

When considering the credibility of a complainant whose evidence may be subject to significant inconsistencies or contradictions, the judge need to look for corroboration implicating the accused. There should simply be evidence that is "capable of restoring the trier's faith in the complainant's account."

Where credibility assessment requires confirmatory evidence of a crown witness, it need only be capable of affirming the trier-of-fact's faith in the complainant's account.

Evidence Corroborating of Both Theories

Evidence that supports the complainant's evidence but is also consistent with the accused's evidence may still be used as corroborative evidence. However, the judge may not use evidence that "equally supports competing accounts" to "selectively" support one side and not the other.

Corroboration of Tainted Witnesses

Suspicious or tainted witnesses can corroborate each other's evidence as long as the Crown disproves collusion.

In analyzing credibility it is not necessary that there be corroborative evidence that specially implicates the accused, but it should have the effect of "restoring the trier’s faith in the witness’s testimony."

Corroboration With Records

Testimony that corroborates records, even those created by the accused, can be an admissible form of evidence.

Accomplices

Where more than one accused is tried, confirmatory evidence from an accomplice is only admissible as confirmatory if the evidence is otherwise admissible against the accused.

Appeal

What constitutes corroboration is a question of law and is reviewable on a standard of correctness. Whether corroboration is needed to establish a fact is also a question of law.

Types of Corroboration

Types of corroboration include:

• Post-Offence Conduct of accused
• Confessions of the accused
• Circumstantial Evidence of the accused's or complaint's presence

Where Corroboration is Required

When proving the following offence, corroboration is required:

• Treason (s. 47)
• Perjury (s. 131)
• Procuring a Feigned Marriage (s. 291)
• Forgery (s. 366, 367)

Prior versions of the Criminal Code required corroboration for several sexual offences. These have now been abolished by way of s. 274.

Corroboration is also required for "Vetrovec witnesses" (ie. those witnesses that are considered "disreputable").

The approach to hearsay under Bradshaw also puts considerable importance on corroboration.

When Corroboration is Not Required

Unless otherwise statutorily enacted, no offence requires corroboration at common law. While there are common law rules where reliability issues may require corroboration (see e.g. Vetrovec witnesses and Bradshaw statements), it does not depend on the offence charged. Historically, however, there were certain sexual offences that would require corroboration.

Prior to 1983 there was a statutory requirement for corroboration for various sexual offences.

This requirement was modified in January 4, 1983 with the repeal of s. 139 requiring corroboration for the following offences:

• 148 – sexual intercourse with feeble-minded person
• 150 – incest
• 151 – seduction of female between sixteen and eighteen
• 152 – seduction under promise of marriage
• 153 – sexual intercourse with step-daughter, foster daughter or female employee
• 154 – seduction of female passengers on vessels
• 166 – parent or guardian procuring defilement.

The 1983 amendment also added s. 246.4, which stated:

246.4 Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 150 (incest), 157 (gross indecency), 246.1 (sexual assault), 246.2 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm) or 246.3 (aggravated sexual assault), no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.

–

This section was found to not operate retroactively.

On January 1, 1988, an additional amendment was made, modifying s. 246.4.

The 1988 amendments removed the corroboration requirements for the following sexual offences:

• 140 – sexual interference
• 141 – invitation to sexual touching
• 146 – sexual exploitation
• 154 – anal intercourse
• 155 – bestiality
• 167 – householder permitting sexual activity
• 168 – corrupting children
• 169 – indecent assaults
• 195 – procuring sexual intercourse
• 246.1 – sexual assault
• 246.2 – sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
• 246.3 – aggravated sexual assault.

The 1988 removal of corroboration was found to be retrospective to all sexual offences previously requiring corroboration.

The current statutory pronouncement on corroboration simply abolishes any prior statutory or older common law rules on corroboration for sexual offences. Section 274 states:

Corroboration not required

274 If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 [sexual interference], 152 [invitation to sexual touching], 153 [sexual exploitation], 153.1 [sexual exploitation of disabled], 155 [incest], 160 [bestiality], 170 [parent or guardian procuring sexual activity], 171 [householder permitting prohibited sexual activity], 172 [corrupting children], 173 [Indecent acts], 271 [sexual assault], 272 [sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm], 273 [aggravated sexual assault], 286.1 [comm. to obtain sexual services for consideration], 286.2 [material benefit from sexual services provided] or 286.3 [procuring], no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 274; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12; 2014, c. 25, s. 16; 2019, c. 25, s. 99.

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

---

The offences list s. 274 consist of:

• Sexual Interference (151)
• Invitation to Sexual Touching (152)
• Sexual Exploitation (153 or 153.1)
• Incest (155)
• Anal Intercourse (159)
• Bestiality (160)
• Parent or guardian procuring sexual activity (170)
• Householder permitting sexual activity (171)
• Corrupting Children (172)
• Indecent Acts (173)
• Sexual Assault (271)
• Sexual Assault with a Weapon (272)
• Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm (272)
• Aggravated Sexual Assault (273)
• Obtaining sexual services for consideration (286.1)
• Material benefit from sexual services (286.2)
• Procuring (286.3)

Similarly, any rules requiring children's evidence to be corroborated has been abolished.

Children’s evidence

659 Any requirement whereby it is mandatory for a court to give the jury a warning about convicting an accused on the evidence of a child is abrogated.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 659; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 15; 1993, c. 45, s. 9.

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

---

See Also

• Disreputable and Unsavoury Witnesses