Proving Facts: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "} at paras ([0-9]+ to [0-9]+)<" to "}{{ats|$1}}<" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
This standard remains the same even for findings of legislative or social fact.<ref> | This standard remains the same even for findings of legislative or social fact.<ref> | ||
Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, [http://canlii.ca/t/g2f56 2013 SCC 72] (CanLII){{TheCourtSCC}}{{ | ''Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g2f56 2013 SCC 72] (CanLII){{TheCourtSCC}}{{atsL|g2f56|48| to 53}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 18:43, 2 September 2019
- < Evidence
Introduction
There are several ways that facts can be established. The predominant manner of establishing fact is through evidence. In fact, almost all manners of proof require some amount of evidence and the real distinction is the proximity of the evidence to the fact at issue.
Facts are established by:
- Direct Evidence
- Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences
- Legal Presumptions
- Judicial Notice
- Admissions of Fact
Standard of Review
Findings of fact are to be reviewable by a higher level on a standard of palpable or overriding error.[1] This standard remains the same even for findings of legislative or social fact.[2]
- ↑ See Standard of Appellate Review#Question of Fact
- ↑
Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), per curiam, at paras 48 to 53
Topics
- Related