Relevance and Materiality: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1" |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[fr:Pertinence_et_matérialité]] | |||
{{Currency2|October|2022}} | |||
{{LevelOne}} | {{LevelOne}} | ||
{{HeaderEvidence}} | {{HeaderEvidence}} | ||
| Line 4: | Line 6: | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
A trial judge has duty to ensure that only relevant, material and admissible evidence is received by a jury.<ref> | A trial judge has duty to ensure that only relevant, material and admissible evidence is received by a jury.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)|400 CCC (3d) 490}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|jd1hr|52}}<Br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|T(JA)|fqmzd|2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII)|288 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atsL|fqmzd|50| and 92}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
==Relevance== | ==Relevance== | ||
{{seealso|Acceptance of Evidence}} | {{seealso|Acceptance of Evidence}} | ||
Relevancy is evidence that tends, "as a matter of logic and human experience", to make a proposition more likely to be true.<ref> | 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|J-LJ|5246|2000 SCC 51 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 600}}{{perSCC-H|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> | {{CanLIIRP|Arp|1fqq7|1998 CanLII 769 (SCC)|[1998] 3 SCR 339}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Jackson|gmblf|2015 ONCA 832 (CanLII)|332 CCC (3d) 466}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|gmblf|122}} )“[r]elevance demands a determination of 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 another fact more probable than it would be otherwise.”) <br> | |||
{{CanLIIRT|Clarke|1v98k|1998 CanLII 14604 (ON CA)|112 OAC 233}}{{perONCA-H|Rosenberg JA}}, at pp. 241-2 ("[T]he test of relevancy in the law of evidence is not an exacting one and is not dependent upon scientific proof.")<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRT|B.(L.); R. v. G.(M.A.)|6hbz|1997 CanLII 3187 (ON CA)|116 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perONCA-H|Charron JA}}, at 492 (CCC) quoting Paciocco & Stuesser, Essentials of Canadian Law: The Law of Evidence (1996), at p. 19: ("The authors explained that evidence will be deemed 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.") | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Relevance is "relative to" and must be assessed in context of (a) "the case as a whole" and (b) "the positions of counsel" | Relevance is "relative to" and must be assessed in context of (a) "the case as a whole" and (b) "the positions of counsel."<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|jd1hr|51}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Evidence must be relevant before it can be admissible | 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> | ''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|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> | {{CanLIIRP|Zeolkowski|1ft57|1989 CanLII 72 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 1378, 50 CCC (3d) 566}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Any relevant evidence will be admissible unless otherwise excludable for legal or policy-based reasons.<ref> | Any relevant evidence will be admissible unless otherwise excludable for legal or policy-based reasons.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Morris|1lpds|1983 CanLII 28 (SCC)|[1983] 2 SCR 190}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atp|201}}<br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Headley|hvd6q|2018 ONSC 5818 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Barnes J}}{{atL|hvd6q|6}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </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> | 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> | {{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" | 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> | {{supra1|Cloutier}}{{atp|27}} and referenced in Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence, 2010, (Thomson Carswell: Toronto, 2008) at Section 3.0 <br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|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> | ||
{{CanLIIRT|Schneider|js8qf|2022 SCC 34 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Rowe J}}{{aTL|js8qf|40}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Blackman|1z1bv|2008 SCC 37 (CanLII)|[2008] 2 SCR 298}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{AtL|1z1bv|30}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Certain evidence does not cease to be relevant or become irrelevant simply because it can support more than one inference. <ref> | Certain evidence does not cease to be relevant or become irrelevant simply because it can support more than one inference. <ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Underwood|5fff|2002 ABCA 310 (CanLII)|170 CCC (3d) 500}}{{perABCA|Conrad JA}}{{atL|5fff|25}}</ref> | ||
Relevance is sometimes divided into 1) logical relevance and 2) legal relevance.<ref> | Relevance is sometimes divided into 1) logical relevance and 2) legal relevance.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 9}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}</ref> | {{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 9}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}</ref> | ||
Logical relevance refers to the connection between two facts. | Logical relevance refers to the connection between two facts. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 55: | ||
Where the evidence is of limited relevance or admissibility, the trial judge has a duty to instruct the jury on the permitted and prohibited uses of the evidence.<Ref> | Where the evidence is of limited relevance or admissibility, the trial judge has a duty to instruct the jury on the permitted and prohibited uses of the evidence.<Ref> | ||
{{supra1|Camara}}{{atL|jd1hr|52}} ("Where evidence of limited relevance or admissibility is received, the judge has an obligation to instruct jurors about the permitted and prohibited use of that evidence")<Br> | {{supra1|Camara}}{{atL|jd1hr|52}} ("Where evidence of limited relevance or admissibility is received, the judge has an obligation to instruct jurors about the permitted and prohibited use of that evidence")<Br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Calnen||2019 SCC 6 (CanLII)|[2019] 1 SCR 301}}{{perSCC|Martin J | {{CanLIIRP|Calnen|hx9v4|2019 SCC 6 (CanLII)|[2019] 1 SCR 301}}{{perSCC-H|Martin J}} (dissenting different issue){{atL|hx9v4|113}}<Br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Ball|hx751|2019 BCCA 32 (CanLII)|371 CCC (3d) 381}}{{perBCCA|Dickson JA}}{{AtL|hx751|91}}<br> | |||
T | {{CanLIIRP|T(JA)|fqmzd|2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII)|288 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fqmzd|50}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Logical Relevance | ; 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" | 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}} | {{CanLIIRP|Arp|1fqq7|1998 CanLII 769 (SCC)|[1998] 3 SCR 339}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fqq7|38}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 63: | Line 71: | ||
Legal relevance is the cost/benefit analysis of the admission of evidence on the basis of: <ref> | Legal relevance is the cost/benefit analysis of the admission of evidence on the basis of: <ref> | ||
{{ibid1|Mohan}}<br> | {{ibid1|Mohan}}<br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Morris|1lpds|1983 CanLII 28 (SCC)|[1983] 2 SCR 190}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}} - discusses requirement of "logically probative" evidence</ref> | ||
* the probative value outweighing prejudicial effect; | * the probative value outweighing prejudicial effect; | ||
* the "inordinate amount of time which is not commensurate with its value"; and | * the "inordinate amount of time which is not commensurate with its value"; and | ||
| Line 75: | Line 83: | ||
; Multi-count indictments | ; 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> | 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> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|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|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> | {{CanLIIRP|F|22cch|2006 NSCA 42 (CanLII)|212 CCC (3d) 134}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}{{atL|22cch|26}}<br> | ||
| Line 87: | Line 95: | ||
; Constitution | ; 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> | 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> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Hewitt|g9vsb|1986 CanLII 4716 (MB CA)|32 CCC (3d) 54}}{{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> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Guyett|g9nxc|1989 CanLII 7202 (ON CA)|51 CCC (3d) 368}}{{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> | </ref> | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
| Line 95: | Line 103: | ||
{{seealso|Acceptance of Evidence}} | {{seealso|Acceptance of Evidence}} | ||
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> | 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 | {{CanLIIRP|Gill|gc01b|1987 CanLII 6779 (MB CA)| (1987) 39 CCC (3d) 506}}{{perMBCA|Huband JA}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Bernardi|htwpg|1974 CanLII 1488 (ON CA)| , 20 CCC (2d) 523 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA-H|Arnup JA}}</ref> | {{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. | 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:39, 14 July 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed October 2022. (Rev. # 95513) |
- < Evidence
General Principles
A trial judge has duty to ensure that only relevant, material and admissible evidence is received by a jury.[1]
- ↑
R v Camara, 2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 52
R v T(JA), 2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII), 288 CCC (3d) 1, per Watt JA, at paras 50 and 92
Relevance
Relevancy is evidence that tends, "as a matter of logic and human experience", to make a proposition more likely to be true.[1]
Relevance is "relative to" and must be assessed in context of (a) "the case as a whole" and (b) "the positions of counsel."[2]
Evidence must be relevant before it can be admissible. Irrelevant evidence must be excluded. [3] Any relevant evidence will be admissible unless otherwise excludable for legal or policy-based reasons.[4]
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.[5] 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."[6]
Certain evidence does not cease to be relevant or become irrelevant simply because it can support more than one inference. [7]
Relevance is sometimes divided into 1) logical relevance and 2) legal relevance.[8] Logical relevance refers to the connection between two facts.
- Limited Relevance
Where the evidence is of limited relevance or admissibility, the trial judge has a duty to instruct the jury on the permitted and prohibited uses of the evidence.[9]
- 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."[10] There is no minimum probative value required for evidence to be relevant.[11]
- Legal Relevance
Legal relevance is the cost/benefit analysis of the admission of evidence on the basis of: [12]
- 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.[13]
- 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.[14]
- Appellate Review
The relevance of evidence is a question of law and is reviewable on a standard of correctness.[15]
- 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.[16]
- ↑
R v J-LJ, 2000 SCC 51 (CanLII), [2000] 2 SCR 600, per 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).")
R v Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 SCR 339, per Cory J
R v Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832 (CanLII), 332 CCC (3d) 466, per Watt JA, at para 122 )“[r]elevance demands a determination of 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 another fact more probable than it would be otherwise.”)
R v Clarke, 1998 CanLII 14604 (ON CA) (working hyperlinks pending), per Rosenberg JA, at pp. 241-2 ("[T]he test of relevancy in the law of evidence is not an exacting one and is not dependent upon scientific proof.")
R v B.(L.); R. v. G.(M.A.), 1997 CanLII 3187 (ON CA) (working hyperlinks pending), per Charron JA, at 492 (CCC) quoting Paciocco & Stuesser, Essentials of Canadian Law: The Law of Evidence (1996), at p. 19: ("The authors explained that evidence will be deemed 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.") - ↑ R v Camara, 2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 51
- ↑
Hollington v Hewthorn & Co. Ltd., [1943] K.B. 587 (CA), at p. 594 (“all evidence that is relevant to an issue is admissible, while all that is irrelevant is excluded”)
R v R v Cloutier, 1979 CanLII 25 (SCC), 48 CCC (2d) 1 (SCC), per Pratte J
R v Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1378, 50 CCC (3d) 566, per Sopinka J
- ↑
R v Morris, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 SCR 190, per Lamer J, at p. 201
R v Headley, 2018 ONSC 5818 (CanLII), per Barnes J, at para 6
- ↑ Cloutier, supra
- ↑
Cloutier, supra, at p. 27 and referenced in Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence, 2010, (Thomson Carswell: Toronto, 2008) at Section 3.0
R v Sims, 1994 CanLII 1298 (BC CA), 87 CCC (3d) 402, per Wood JA, at pp. 420-27 - relevance determined by the context of the entire case and taking into account Crown and defence
R v Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 (CanLII) (working hyperlinks pending), per Rowe J, at para 40
R v Blackman, 2008 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 298, per Charron J, at para 30
- ↑ R v Underwood, 2002 ABCA 310 (CanLII), 170 CCC (3d) 500, per Conrad JA, at para 25
- ↑ R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, per Sopinka J
- ↑
Camara, supra, at para 52 ("Where evidence of limited relevance or admissibility is received, the judge has an obligation to instruct jurors about the permitted and prohibited use of that evidence")
R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6 (CanLII), [2019] 1 SCR 301, per Martin J (dissenting different issue), at para 113
R v Ball, 2019 BCCA 32 (CanLII), 371 CCC (3d) 381, per Dickson JA, at para 91
R v T(JA), 2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII), 288 CCC (3d) 1, per Watt JA, at para 50
- ↑ R v Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 SCR 339, per Cory J, at para 38
- ↑ Arp, ibid., at para 38 ("...there is no minimum probative value required for evidence to be relevant.")
- ↑
Mohan, ibid.
R v Morris, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 SCR 190, per McIntyre J - discusses requirement of "logically probative" evidence - ↑
R v Corbett, 1988 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 670, 41 CCC (3d) 385, per Dickson CJ
Morris, supra
See also Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence - ↑
R v Headly, 2018 ONSC 5818 (CanLII), per Barnes J, at para 6
R v Brown, 2007 ONCA 71 (CanLII), 216 CCC (3d) 299, per Cronk J, at para 13
R v F, 2006 NSCA 42 (CanLII), 212 CCC (3d) 134, per Cromwell JA, at para 26
See also Similar Fact Evidence - ↑ Mohan, supra, at para 18
- ↑
R v Hewitt, 1986 CanLII 4716 (MB CA), 32 CCC (3d) 54, per Huband JA ("The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence by virtue of s. 317(1) is surely contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. ")
R v Guyett, 1989 CanLII 7202 (ON CA), 51 CCC (3d) 368, per 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.")
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.[1] 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.[2]
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.
- 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.
- ↑
R v Gill, 1987 CanLII 6779 (MB CA), (1987) 39 CCC (3d) 506, per Huband JA
R v Bernardi, 1974 CanLII 1488 (ON CA), , 20 CCC (2d) 523 (ONCA), per Arnup JA - ↑ Bernardi, supra, leave to SCC refused