Hearsay (Cases): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([^\']+)\'\', \[([^\[^]+)\[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([0-9]{4} [a-zA-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \(([^\)]+)\)\{\{" to "{{CanLIIRP|$1|$3|$4 ($5)|, [$2}}{{" |
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([^\']+)\'\',[\s]*\[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([0-9]{4} [^\s]+ [0-9]+)\][\s]*\(([^\)]+)\),[\s]*([^\{]+)\{" to "{{CanLIIRP-S|$1|$2|$3 ($4)|$5}}{" |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| R v Adam et al, [http://canlii.ca/t/1p876 2006 BCSC 1355] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} |||| | | R v Adam et al, [http://canlii.ca/t/1p876 2006 BCSC 1355] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} |||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Aronis|1jp70|2005 CanLII 2057 (ON SC)| [2005] OJ No 286 (Ont. S.C.)}}{{perONSC|Howden J}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| {{CanLIIRP|Beckmann|1k4j1|2005 ABQB 227 (CanLII)|, [2005] AJ No 385 (Alta. QB)}}{{perABQB|Lee J}} |||| | | {{CanLIIRP|Beckmann|1k4j1|2005 ABQB 227 (CanLII)|, [2005] AJ No 385 (Alta. QB)}}{{perABQB|Lee J}} |||| | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| {{CanLIIRP|Johnson|1hjwq|2004 NSCA 91 (CanLII)|, [2004] NSJ No. 280 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Oland JA}}|||| | | {{CanLIIRP|Johnson|1hjwq|2004 NSCA 91 (CanLII)|, [2004] NSJ No. 280 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Oland JA}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Michaud|1h4tx|2004 CanLII 7714 (ON CA)| [2004] OJ No 2098, (Ont. C.A.)}}{{TheCourt}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| {{CanLIIRP|PSB|1x6bd|2004 NSCA 25 (CanLII)|, [2004] NSJ No. 49 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}|||| | | {{CanLIIRP|PSB|1x6bd|2004 NSCA 25 (CanLII)|, [2004] NSJ No. 49 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}}|||| | ||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| {{CanLIIRP|Prince|1hd9s|2004 BCPC 163 (CanLII)|, [2004] BCJ No. 1277 (BC. Prov. Ct.)}}{{perBCPC|Brecknell J}}|||| | | {{CanLIIRP|Prince|1hd9s|2004 BCPC 163 (CanLII)|, [2004] BCJ No. 1277 (BC. Prov. Ct.)}}{{perBCPC|Brecknell J}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Czibulka|1hsbz|2004 CanLII 22985 (ON CA)| [2004] OJ No 3273 (Ont. C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Nolin|41|2003 CanLII 5923 (MB PC)| [2003] M.J. No. 270 (Man. Prov. Ct.)}}{{perMBPC|Sandhu J}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| {{CanLIIRP|Wilder|1gn9x|2003 BCSC 1840 (CanLII)|, [2003] BCJ No. 2884}}{{perBCSC|Romilly J}}|||| | | {{CanLIIRP|Wilder|1gn9x|2003 BCSC 1840 (CanLII)|, [2003] BCJ No. 2884}}{{perBCSC|Romilly J}}|||| | ||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
| R v J.M. [2001] OJ No 1748 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}|||| | | R v J.M. [2001] OJ No 1748 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Lavallee|1l7p6|2000 CanLII 19585 (SK PC)| [2000] S.J. No. 43 (Sask. Prov. Ct.)}}{{perSKPC|Ebert J}} |||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Diu|1fb7m|2000 CanLII 4535 (ON CA)| [2000] OJ No 1770 (Ont. C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| R v Deschenes [2000] OJ No 4658 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}|||| | | R v Deschenes [2000] OJ No 4658 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}|||| | ||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| R v Schwartzenburg [2000] OJ No 2655 (Ont. S.C. Jus.){{NOCANLII}} ||not admitted ||domestic offence | | R v Schwartzenburg [2000] OJ No 2655 (Ont. S.C. Jus.){{NOCANLII}} ||not admitted ||domestic offence | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Van Osselaer|1d3hb|1999 CanLII 5913 (BC SC)| [http://canlii.ca/t/1d3hc 1999 CanLII 6976] (BC SC), [1999] BCJ No. 3140 (BCSC)}}{{perBCSC|MacAulay J}}|| || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| R v St. Croix, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwvmw 1999 CanLII 19721] (NL SCTD), [1999] N.J. 214 (Nfld. S.C.){{perNLSC|Barry J}}|||| | | R v St. Croix, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwvmw 1999 CanLII 19721] (NL SCTD), [1999] N.J. 214 (Nfld. S.C.){{perNLSC|Barry J}}|||| | ||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
| R v Duong [1999] OJ No 1651 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}|||| | | R v Duong [1999] OJ No 1651 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Merz|1f9tv|1999 CanLII 1647 (ON CA)| (1999) 140 CCC (3d) 259 (Ont. C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| R v Bartlett [1999] OJ No 3313 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}||statement admitted ||domestic offence--statement given within an hour of incident, detailed and signed--witness agreed contents were reliable to what was said-- | | R v Bartlett [1999] OJ No 3313 (Ont. Ct. Jus.){{NOCANLII}}||statement admitted ||domestic offence--statement given within an hour of incident, detailed and signed--witness agreed contents were reliable to what was said-- | ||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
| R v S.H. [1998] O.J. No 613 (Ont. Prov. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}|| || | | R v S.H. [1998] O.J. No 613 (Ont. Prov. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}|| || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Fraser|1gmp9|1997 CanLII 2562 (NS SC)| [1997] NSJ No. 541 (NSSC)}}{{perNSSC|Carver J}}|| || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Conway|4rfx|1997 CanLII 2726 (ON CA)| (1997) 121 CCC (3d) 397 (Ont C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Labrosse JA}}|| || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| R v O’Keefe [1997] N.J. No. 314 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}|| || | | R v O’Keefe [1997] N.J. No. 314 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}|| || | ||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
| R v Leopold [1996] NSJ No. 544 (NS Prov. Ct){{NOCANLII}}|| || | | R v Leopold [1996] NSJ No. 544 (NS Prov. Ct){{NOCANLII}}|| || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Pottie|1mpvm|1996 CanLII 5604 (NS CA)| [1996] NSJ No. 138 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Puglsey JA}}|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| R v Collins [1996] OJ No 2881 (Ont Prov. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}||statement admitted||recanted witness | | R v Collins [1996] OJ No 2881 (Ont Prov. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}||statement admitted||recanted witness | ||
Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
| {{CanLIIR|Misir|1fn6n|2001 BCCA 202 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Proudfoot JA}} || admitted to prove intent, motive and identity, and relationship between the parties | | {{CanLIIR|Misir|1fn6n|2001 BCCA 202 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Proudfoot JA}} || admitted to prove intent, motive and identity, and relationship between the parties | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | {{CanLIIRP-S|Nickerson|1h36w|1996 CanLII 3664 (NS SC)| [1996] NSJ No. 342}}{{perNSSC|Haliburton J}} || 3 witnesses recanted, saying they forgot, were intoxicated at time, were misunderstood by police--court admitted prior statements--reliability found based on separate and corroborating statements, the witnesses understood need for truth, and it was accurately recorded | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 12:39, 2 March 2021
Categorical Exceptions
State of Mind
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Wysochan 1930 CanLII 483 (SK CA), (1930) 54 CCC 172 (SKCA), per Haultain CJ |
"there's a bullet in my body" -- admitted |
R v Edwards, 1994 CanLII 1461 (ON CA), , 91 CCC (3d) 123 (ONCA), per McKinlay JA | cell phone messages suggestive of trafficking -- admitted for purpose of establishing the activities of accused and intent to respond. |
Res Gestae
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Keewatin, 2013 ABPC 1 (CanLII), per Sully J | rejected |
R v Villeda, 2011 ABCA 85 (CanLII), per curiam | complainant's 911 call admitted in evidence as res gestae hearsay dispite issues with impairment |
R v Khan, 2010 ONCJ 580 (CanLII), per Schwarzl J | complainant's 911 call admissible for prosecution as res gestae |
Statutory
Case Name | Result | Summary |
---|---|---|
R v Alcantara, 2012 ABQB 219 (CanLII), per Greckol J | prelim evidence was admitted under s. 715 | |
R v Beah, 2013 ONSC 2490 (CanLII), per Strathy J | application under .715(1)(d) granted |
Principled Exception to Hearsay
General
Case Name | Result | Summary |
---|---|---|
R v Frederickson, 2013 BCSC 779 (CanLII), per Grist J | rejected in part | |
R v Clarke, 2013 MBQB 26 (CanLII), per Saull J | admitted | |
R v House, 2012 ONSC 6749 (CanLII), per Broad J | rejected (agreed stmt) admitted (interview) |
|
R v Serre, 2012 ONSC 3210 (CanLII), per Aitken J | admitted | guilty plea and agreed statement of facts of a co-accused are admitted only as far as it covers first-hand knowledge. |
R v Deelespp, 2002 ABPC 85 (CanLII), per Allen J | admitted | |
R v Agwa and Ojulu, 2011 MBPC 21 (CanLII), per Elliott J |
admitted | |
R v Sasakamoose, 2008 SKPC 164 (CanLII), per Kolenick J | rejected | |
R v EC, 2007 SKPC 27 (CanLII), per Gray J | ||
R v KPH, 2007 ABQB 728 (CanLII), per Thomas J | ||
R v Kontzamanis, 2007 BCSC 1603 (CanLII), per Dillon J | dismissed | |
R v Williams, 2006 NSCA 23 (CanLII), , [2006] NSJ No. 63 (NSCA), per Oland JA |
||
R v Sigovin [2006] OJ No 1967 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) |
admitted | |
R v White, 2006 ABQB 888 (CanLII), per Moreau J | dismissed | |
R v Adam et al, 2006 BCSC 1355 (CanLII), per Romilly J | ||
R v Aronis, 2005 CanLII 2057 (ON SC), [2005] OJ No 286 (Ont. S.C.), per Howden J |
||
R v Beckmann, 2005 ABQB 227 (CanLII), , [2005] AJ No 385 (Alta. QB), per Lee J | ||
R v Levesque [2004] OJ No 2528 (Ont. S.C.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v AM, 2004 ONCJ 185 (CanLII), , [2004] O.J. No 3770 (Ont. S.C.), per Hackett J | ||
R v Johnson, 2004 NSCA 91 (CanLII), , [2004] NSJ No. 280 (NSCA), per Oland JA | ||
R v Michaud, 2004 CanLII 7714 (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 2098, (Ont. C.A.), per curiam |
||
R v PSB, 2004 NSCA 25 (CanLII), , [2004] NSJ No. 49 (NSCA), per Cromwell JA | ||
R v Singh [2004] OJ No 1799 (Ont. Ct. Jus)(*no CanLII links) | admitted | Domestic offence |
R v Scott, 2004 NSCA 141 (CanLII), , [2004] NSJ No. 451 (NSCA), per Fichaud JA | ||
R v Malik, 2004 BCSC 299 (CanLII), , [2004] BCJ No. 456 (BCSC), per Josephson J | ||
R v Morehouse, 2004 ABQB 97 (CanLII), , [2004] AJ No 123 (Alta. Q.B.), per Rooke J | ||
R v Strauss, 2004 SKPC 146 (CanLII), , [2004] S.J. No. 846 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), per Carter J | ||
R v Wodage [2004] M.J. No. 61 (Man. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Prince, 2004 BCPC 163 (CanLII), , [2004] BCJ No. 1277 (BC. Prov. Ct.), per Brecknell J | ||
R v Czibulka, 2004 CanLII 22985 (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 3273 (Ont. C.A.), per Rosenberg JA |
||
R v Nolin, 2003 CanLII 5923 (MB PC), [2003] M.J. No. 270 (Man. Prov. Ct.), per Sandhu J |
||
R v Wilder, 2003 BCSC 1840 (CanLII), , [2003] BCJ No. 2884, per Romilly J | ||
R v Campbell, 2002 NSCA 35 (CanLII), , [2002] NSJ No. 120 (NSCA), per Bateman JA | ||
R v Nazareth [2002] OJ No 4085 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Nejad, 2002 BCPC 617 (CanLII), , [2002] BCJ No. 3067 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), per Chen J | statement admitted | domestic violence -- gave different story from handwritten statement--statement consistent with 911 call and other evidence--no duress in statement, written over 45 minutes |
R v EJF, 2001 NSCA 158 (CanLII), , [2001] NSJ No. 434 (NSCA), per Bateman JA | ||
R v Oakley, 2001 NSPC 36 (CanLII), , [2001] NSJ No. 537 (NS Prov. Ct.), per C Williams J | ||
R v Pennell, 2001 NSPC 12 (CanLII), , [2001] NSJ No. 211(NS Prov. Ct.), per C Williams J | ||
R v Nguyen, 2001 ABCA 98 (CanLII), , [2001] AJ No 513 (Alta. C.A.), per curiam | ||
R v Glowatski, 2001 BCCA 678 (CanLII), , [2001] BCJ No. 2499 (BCCA), per Hall JA | ||
R v Auger, 2001 NWTSC 30 (CanLII), , [2001] N.W.T.J. No. 45 (NWT Sup. Ct.), per Schuler J | ||
R v Morrissey [2001] OJ No 498 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Armstrong [2001] OJ No 2348 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v J.M. [2001] OJ No 1748 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Lavallee, 2000 CanLII 19585 (SK PC), [2000] S.J. No. 43 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), per Ebert J |
||
R v Diu, 2000 CanLII 4535 (ON CA), [2000] OJ No 1770 (Ont. C.A.), per Sharpe JA |
||
R v Deschenes [2000] OJ No 4658 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v R.B. [2000] OJ No 1888 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Schwartzenburg [2000] OJ No 2655 (Ont. S.C. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | not admitted | domestic offence |
R v Van Osselaer, 1999 CanLII 5913 (BC SC), 1999 CanLII 6976 (BC SC), [1999] BCJ No. 3140 (BCSC), per MacAulay J |
||
R v St. Croix, 1999 CanLII 19721 (NL SCTD), [1999] N.J. 214 (Nfld. S.C.), per Barry J | ||
R v MacLeod [1999] OJ No 4325(*no CanLII links) | statement admitted | domestic offence--victim claimed at trial it was accident--not under oath or video tapted |
R v Duong [1999] OJ No 1651 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Merz, 1999 CanLII 1647 (ON CA), (1999) 140 CCC (3d) 259 (Ont. C.A.), per Doherty JA |
||
R v Bartlett [1999] OJ No 3313 (Ont. Ct. Jus.)(*no CanLII links) | statement admitted | domestic offence--statement given within an hour of incident, detailed and signed--witness agreed contents were reliable to what was said-- |
R v S.H. [1998] O.J. No 613 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Fraser, 1997 CanLII 2562 (NS SC), [1997] NSJ No. 541 (NSSC), per Carver J |
||
R v Conway, 1997 CanLII 2726 (ON CA), (1997) 121 CCC (3d) 397 (Ont C.A.), per Labrosse JA |
||
R v O’Keefe [1997] N.J. No. 314 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Chartrand [1997] M.J. No. 552 (Man. Q.B.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Mohamed [1997] OJ No 1298 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Campbell [1997] OJ No 5837 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v W.B. [1997] OJ No 5382 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | domestic assault, threats--witness gave video statement, left country--admitted statement--corroboration | |
R v Leopold [1996] NSJ No. 544 (NS Prov. Ct)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Pottie, 1996 CanLII 5604 (NS CA), [1996] NSJ No. 138 (NSCA), per Puglsey JA |
||
R v Collins [1996] OJ No 2881 (Ont Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | statement admitted | recanted witness |
R v J.K. [1996] BCJ No. 2751 (B.C.Y.C.)(*no CanLII links) | ||
R v Woycheshen [1996] M.J. No. 570 (Man. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) | statement not admitted | |
R v Smart [1995] OJ No 4182 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) |
Deceased witness
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Chretien, 2009 CanLII 9390 (ON SC), per Aitken J | video statement admitted for truth of contents under KGB |
R v Kociuk, 2009 MBQB 162 (CanLII), per Joyal ACJ | confession to murder by a deceased third party held admissible |
R v McCotter, 2012 BCCA 54 (CanLII), per Ryan JA | statements made to co-workers before death admissible |
R v Candir, 2009 ONCA 915 (CanLII), per Watt JA | admissible |
R v Fairburn, 2009 CanLII 37714 (ONSC), per Poupore J | admissible |
R v Mohammed, 2007 ONCA 513 (CanLII), per curiam | admissible |
R v Assoun, 2006 NSCA 47 (CanLII), per curiam | |
R v Ackland, 2006 ABQB 347 (CanLII), per Germain J | deceased mother's statement excluded |
R v Solic, 2003 ABQB 1069 (CanLII), per Slatter J | deceased gave video statement; admissible |
Recanting witness
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v CM, 2012 ABPC 102 (CanLII), per Franklin J | witness gave preliminary inquiry testimony, later said that it was all a lie--prior statement admitted |
R v McCormack et al., 2008 ONCJ 286 (CanLII), per Beatty J | prior written statement evidence partially admitted |
R v Tomlinson, 2008 CanLII 58424 (ONSC), per Archibald J | oral utterance to police; inadmissible |
R v Devine, 2007 ABCA 49 (CanLII), per curiam (2:1) | girlfriend keeps changing story; ID evidence admitted |
R v Rombough, 2006 ABPC 262 (CanLII), per Kerby J | video statement admitted |
R v Nejad, 2004 BCSC 1819 (CanLII), per Truscott J | statement to police admitted |
R v Duong, 2009 MBCA 85 (CanLII), , 1998 CanLII 3585 (ON C.A.), per curiam, per Monnin JA | "forgetful" witness gave video statement; admitted. |
R v Woodard, 2009 MBCA 42 (CanLII), per Chartier JA | "forgetful" witness; prior statement admissible |
R v EC, 2007 SKPC 27 (CanLII), per Gray J | witness "forgets"; prior statement admissible |
R v Moreau, 2006 NUCJ 8 (CanLII), per Kilpatrick J | prior statement not admitted |
R v Malik and Bagri, 2004 BCSC 2004 (CanLII), per Josephson J | forgetful witness gave statement; admitted as past recollection recorded |
Refusal to testify
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Cansanay, 2009 MBCA 59 (CanLII), per Monnin JA | gang members refuse to testify; overturn exclusion of statements |
R v U. (S.), 2007 NUCJ 20 (CanLII), per Johnson J | statement admitted |
R v Goodstoney, 2005 ABQB 128 (CanLII), per Rooke J | 2 out of 3 KGB statements rejected |
R v Scott, 2004 NSCA 141 (CanLII), per Fichaud JA | KGB statement wrongly admitted in 2004 NSSC 13 (CanLII) |
R v Charles, 1997 CanLII 9699 (SKCA), per Cameron JA | 3 prior statements inadmissible |
Disabled witness
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Pearson, 1994 CanLII 8751 (BCCA), per Taylor JA |
Youthful witness
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Weselak, 1999 CanLII 14165 (MBQB), per Menzies J | admitted PI testimony of child |
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Clark, 2008 ABQB 384 (CanLII), per Lee J | missing witness; PI testimony admissible |
R v Lewis, 2003 NSPC 3 (CanLII), per C Williams J | witness gave 2 statements, was available but failed to attend court; statement inadmissible |
R v May, 2012 BCSC 802 (CanLII), per Williams J | admissible - Preliminary Inquiry transcript |
Confession
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 (CanLII), per Sharpe JA | prior statements admitted |
Misc
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Singh-Murray, 2011 NBPC 33 (CanLII), per McCarroll J | KGB statement not admissible |
Domestic Violence cases
Case Name | Summary |
---|---|
R v Abel, 2011 NLTD 173 (CanLII), per Stack J | hearsay evidence of murder victim reporting multiple incidents of violence to family was inadmissible under principled approach |
R v Pasqualino, 2008 ONCA 554 (CanLII), per LaForme JA | admitted for est. motive, intent and animus -- statement of victim reporting past physical and verbal abuse. |
R v Moo, 2009 ONCA 645 (CanLII), per Watt JA | statement by deceased reporting nature of relationship and marriage -- admitted for 1) motive, intent, and animus 2) rebut accused claim of unintentional killing and 3) credibility if accused testifies |
R v Candir, 2009 ONCA 915 (CanLII), per Watt JA | 150 statements of deceased to show state of mind -- admitted for motive, animus and identity of killer and state of mind of killer (para 51) |
R v Polimac, 2010 ONCA 346 (CanLII), per Doherty JA | admitted to establish motive in domestic homicide |
R v Bari, 2006 NBCA 119 (CanLII), per Deschênes JA | admissible to show victim's fear / state of mind |
R v Van Osselaer, 2002 BCCA 464 (CanLII), per Hall JA | admissible to show nature of relationship bw accused and deceased, show motive and identity of killer, shows intent, rebut defence of accident, narrative |
R v Misir, 2001 BCCA 202 (CanLII), per Proudfoot JA | admitted to prove intent, motive and identity, and relationship between the parties |
R v Nickerson, 1996 CanLII 3664 (NS SC), [1996] NSJ No. 342, per Haliburton J |
3 witnesses recanted, saying they forgot, were intoxicated at time, were misunderstood by police--court admitted prior statements--reliability found based on separate and corroborating statements, the witnesses understood need for truth, and it was accurately recorded |