Opinion Evidence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{LevelOne}} | {{LevelOne}} | ||
{{HeaderOpinions}} | {{HeaderOpinions}} | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
To address these situations the law of opinion is divided into three categories of opinion evidence that is admissible:<ref> | To address these situations the law of opinion is divided into three categories of opinion evidence that is admissible:<ref> | ||
''R v Parada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsz4l 2016 SKCA 102] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Herauf JA}}{{ | ''R v Parada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsz4l 2016 SKCA 102] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Herauf JA}}{{atL|gsz4l|22}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
# lay opinion, | # lay opinion, | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 22 August 2019
Introduction
An "opinion" is "an inference or conclusion drawn ...from facts some of which are known to him and others assumed, or drawn from facts which, though lending probability to the inference, do not evolve it by a process of absolutely necessary reasoning"[1]
When a witness is put on the stand their primary role is to recall their knowledge of some past event at issue in the case. As a general rule no witnesses are allowed to give any opinion. However, in practice, the line between fact and opinion can never be clearly drawn, so often exceptions will be made. Opinion, in certain cases, can be useful to the trier of fact in coming to their conclusions. Experts are generally allowed to give their opinion in matters within their expert knowledge that the trier cannot easily deduce themselves.
To address these situations the law of opinion is divided into three categories of opinion evidence that is admissible:[2]
- lay opinion,
- expert opinion, and
- statutory or regulatory certified experts.
- ↑
Black’s Law Dictionary, (The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 1995), at p. 855
- ↑ R v Parada, 2016 SKCA 102 (CanLII), per Herauf JA, at para 22
Topics
- Lay Opinion Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Statutory Expert Evidence: