Threshold Reliability of Hearsay: Inconsistencies in the Declarant’s Statement

In exceptional cases, hearsay evidence can be admitted under the principled approach if it satisfies the twin requirements of necessity and reliability:


See R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57 (CanLII), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787, at para. 9; see also R. v. Khan, 1990 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, 11 W.C.B. (2d) 10; R. v. Smith, 1992 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915, 94 D.L.R. (4th) 590; and R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40 (CanLII), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144.
In determining whether hearsay is sufficiently inherently trustworthy to warrant its admission, the court may consider not only the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement but other evidence properly before the trier of fact supporting or undermining the accuracy of the out-of-court statement.

R. v. Dupe, 2016 ONCA 653 (CanLII), [2016] O.J. No. 4586, at para. 46.

For instance, inconsistencies in the declarant’s statement/s can serve to undermine its reliability.

See for instance, See R. v. Ngoddy, 2016 ONSC 5921, aff’d 2017 ONCA 499 (CanLII).
Stuart O'Connell, O'Connell Law Group (leadersinlaw.ca).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant