The Admission of Double Hearsay


When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement, both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.

[E]ach level of double hearsay must fall within an exception, or be admissible under the principled approach.

R. v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144 at para 172

 So, for example, where A describes to B what A witnessed during fight (one level of hearsay), and B makes a statement to police about what A has told him (another level of hearsay), the party seeking to have B’s hearsay police statement admitted as evidence for the truth of its contents would have to

a.       prove that B’s out-of-court statement represents that version of events which was recounted to him by A, and then

b.       prove that the version of events described by A to B was what actually happened.
See R. v. Cesar, 2016 ONCA 890
Hearsay evidence “is defined not by the nature of the evidence per se, but by the use to which the evidence is sought to be put: namely, to prove that what is asserted is true.”

 R. v. Starr, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 162.

If the party seeking admission of B’s hearsay police statement wishes to use the statement, not for truth of its contents, but rather to impeach A’s testimony at trial, where that testimony is inconsistent with the statement he made to B, the procedure under s. 11 of the Canada Evidence Act governs.



Hearsay and Civil Motions          

In the civil context, simple hearsay is admissible on a motion under Rule 39.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Double hearsay, however, is not admissible on a motion: see Airst v. Airst, 1999 CarswellOnt 362 (C.A.), at para. 6. 

Ontario v. Rothmans et al., 2011 ONSC 5356 (CanLII) at para 37

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more