evidence of prior convictions in civil proceedingsevidence of prior convictions in civil proceedings

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence; Rule 612. Therefore, proof of the conviction was no more than proof that another court came to a conclusion that the defendant was guilty. In most cases, the presumption afforded to the facts surrounding a prior criminal conviction will not be rebuttable because of the nature of the criminal trial with its higher burden of proof. Fairness would dictate that the administration of justice would be better served by permitting a full and robust hearing rather than insisting that finality should prevail. The claims were advanced by the plaintiff, Peter Demeter, the surviving husband of Christine Demeter despite his conviction of the murder of his wife. ), Sopinka, J. et al. (2d) 1 The parties to both proceedings must be the same (mutuality). The rationale for preventing a party from re-litigating decided issues was described in C.U.P.E. Justice LaForme went further to find that the evidence presented regarding the actions of the nurse was consistent with proper nursing practice. H.C.J. The prior criminal conviction was afforded such weight that it was akin to conclusive evidence of the facts. 8.35. Religious Beliefs or Opinions; Rule 611. If there is no way to review the judicial finding policy dictates that this is unfair. 1988, c.E-11, s.18; Nova Scotia Evidence Act R.S.N.S. 2 . ), affd. Alleging and Proving Prior Convictions at Trial - Homepage | NC In C.U.P.E., an employee of the City of Toronto was charged with the sexual assault of a young boy under his supervision in a recreation program. C.A.) In K.F. 21356, May 19, 1989 Ordinarily, the issues raised in the defendants affidavit would warrant the trial of the issue and therefore would not meet the test for summary judgment. C.A.) Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if (1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure, and (2) the procedure under which the same was granted or issued required a substantial showing of rehabilitation or was based on innocence. However, the prima facie weight afforded to criminal convictions is still subject to a right to rebuttal. 1988, c.E-11, s.18, Saskatchewan Evidence Act, R.S.S. While the granting of summary judgments in civil actions on the basis of prior criminal convictions may appear like strict issue estoppel or an overly broad and liberal application of the abuse of process doctrine a review of the case law reveals that the courts do consider the circumstances when re-litigation may be required. Webof relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time. Despite the differences between the criminal and civil forums, courts have increasingly recognized that the final decision of a competent, expert, criminal court should be an important, and in some cases a decisive factor in subsequent civil proceedings. In 1999, the Quebec Court of Appeal in Ali et 124558 Canada Inc. v. Cie dAssurance Guardian et Cie dAssurance Royale23, considered whether a criminal judgment has factual authority and is admissible as evidence, and if so, what weight that evidence should be given. Justice Wakeling of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal explained: The principle of issue estoppel was strongly urged upon the court by the respondents as being a full answer to this appeal. Witnesss Prior Statement; Rule 614. (3d) 249 WebThe first was to regard the statement as one of the group of prior statements of a testifying witness which are excluded entirely from the category of hearsay by Rule 801(d)(1). 1995, c.6, s.6 for the 3-judge panel explained in Polgrain57, upon considering the reasons of the Supreme Court in Toronto (City) v C.U.P.E. 19.78 19.94. 4 [1943] 1 K.B. 37 C.U.P.E., supra at para 37 The protection afforded by the abuse of process doctrine is not focused on the litigants (although one side will benefit from its application) but rather on the administration of justice as a whole. 8.01-413. 1978, c.S-16, s.18, Yukon Evidence Act, R.S.Y. The problem in the application of that doctrine is that it has only been applied in situations where the same issue is being raised by the original parties or their privies. C.A.) Professor Gary Watson authored a critique of the requirement for mutuality in Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality48. Justice Rosenberg rightly upheld the administration of justice by reigning in the application of the abuse of process doctrine. No. Justice LaForme, who presided over the criminal trial, found not only that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the assaults did not even occur. In effect, the Arbitrator found that the sexual abuse had not occurred, contrary to the finding of the criminal court. Rule 410 When a defendant in a criminal action seeks to suppress evidence of prior convictions, C.A. 60 Ibid., para 36. Prior judicial findings in a criminal matter were not admissible as evidence, absent proof of the factual basis for those findings in the civil forum. In some circumstances, prior criminal convictions are not only admissible in subsequent civil actions, the material facts upon which the conviction was based are not subject to challenge. In the civil case, the plaintiff requested an order preventing the defendants from introducing new liability evidence, not before the criminal court. v. Pinto et al.38, Justice D. Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the provincial evidence legislation which permits the admissibility of criminal convictions in civil matters also applies to permit the admissibility of offences under provincial regulatory legislation. 22 Ibid., p. 980 (2d) 583 at p. 589 (Ont. 26 [1993] R.R.A. Counsel for Peter Demeter argued that the principle established in Hollington v. Hewthorn applied in Ontario and answered the defence on all issues. The facts upon which the conviction was based are not rebuttable because to allow the facts to be challenged would adversely affect the administration of justice. 383 The Law of Evidence in Canada, 1999 Butterworths Canada Ltd., June 1999 at paras. Admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings - UK Home At the trial level, Hilbery J. ruled that the evidence of a conviction of the defendant driver of careless driving, at the time and place of the subject collision, was inadmissible because it was Res Inter Alios Act8 (a doctrine which holds that a matter between others is not our business). Justice D. Brown held that the defendant should not be permitted to re-litigate the facts essential to her conviction the fact that she had permitted her vehicle to be operated without insurance because her guilty plea was voluntary and unequivocal. 1990, c.E-16, s.13, North West Territories Evidence Act, R.S.W.N.W.T. In the Ali case, Mr. Ali and his son operated a restaurant under the name Bon B.B.Q. The restaurant was destroyed by fire. It is possible to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 3 The deference given to the trial judges or the jurys fact-finding does not extend to errors in interpretation of law. 847, 53 O.R. 623. Madame Justice Arbour explained in C.U.P.E. An important issue in the criminal trial was whether or not their confessions to police following the crime were voluntary and whether the confessions should therefore be admitted during the criminal trial. Criminal charges were brought against the two men for having set fire to the business and then attempting to defraud their insurers, Guardian and Royal. Rule 609 defines when a party may use evidence of a prior conviction in order to impeach a witness. The standards governing admissibility of prior convictions in civil cases are dif ferent from those in criminal proceedings. Our courts, quite rightly, have trended away from these bright line rules in an effort to get it right. The defendant insurer argued that the criminal conviction constituted res judicata of the fact that the plaintiff, while driving in a manner that caused the accident, had committed a criminal offence. 165 Any doubts as to the legitimacy of the findings made at the earlier proceedings, for whatever reason, properly go to weight and not admissibility. Accordingly, while an accused may be acquitted in a criminal matter because the test of beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, he/she could still be found guilty in a civil matter on exactly the same evidence, where the burden of proof is lower. 2.0 Ongoing Issues Relating to Admissibility. The law's story about prior conviction evidence is also apparent in the rules of evidence, which single out prior convictions with a special rule governing their admissibility, a testament to their sui generis status. 47 see Michael Herman and Gerald Hayden, Issue Estoppel: Mutuality of Parties Reconsidered (1986), 64 Can. The third party sought to strike the third party claim. If requested by the defendant, the state must provide reasonable notice of its intent to use evidence of other crimes. Evidence The claims were denied and the Alis initiated a civil case against Guardian Insurance and Royal Insurance. 3148 (Ont. 32 [1984] O.J. 33 Ibid., p. 268 There is, however, concern based on public policy that the same issues should not be re-litigated so that the parties should not be exposed to the same risk twice and also that there be an end to the litigation process. 89-470, Ali et 124558 Canada Inc. v. Cie dAssurance Guardian et Cie dAssurance Royale, No. Para nosotros usted es lo ms importante, le ofrecemosservicios rpidos y de calidad. 961 A defendant in a civil case should not be precluded from raising the defence that he/she did not do it. 961. In Andreadis et al. F.C.J. It is. NRS 48.039 Testimony of witness who previously underwent hypnosis to recall subject matter of testimony. Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that the court should determine whether a conviction of the defendant of careless driving was admissible at common law. Webpractice to allow antecedent convictions into subsequent civil proceedings as substantive evidence. ), Ali et 124558 Canada Inc. v. Cie dAssurance Guardian et Cie dAssurance Royale, J.E. 22, Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midland Police et al, [1982] A.C. The allegations in the civil action were based on the same defence they had advanced in the criminal trial, namely the voluntariness and therefore admissibility of their confessions. A. Judicial bias, jury impropriety, and investigation errors can be used to counter the prima facie proof that a conviction holds. No. The plaintiff brought a civil action for damages arising out of the assault and moved for summary judgment, relying on the certificate of conviction and a transcript of the criminal courts reasons. The appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Bar Rev. The House Notice and Hearing Requirement. 21 [1969] N.Z.LR. The decision of Justice Thibault confirms the admissibility of criminal convictions in the evidence of a civil trial; does not give prior criminal convictions the conclusive authority of res judicata; and establishes that, in the absence of new evidence to the contrary, the trial judge should draw the appropriate conclusion when determining the weight afforded to the prima facie evidence. Holden J.A. Nor do the respective evidence Acts specify the evidentiary effect of the conviction where the convicted party seeks to challenge the facts underlying the criminal offence in the subsequent civil proceeding. 45 Ibid., para 17 A prior criminal conviction, provided the criminal proceeding was not tainted; and there was a consideration of the issue on the merits; and the issue decided is the same as the issue to be decided in the civil matter, is admissible in subsequent civil proceedings and ordinarily constitutes prima facie but not conclusive proof of the fact of guilt. 2.2.1 Abuse of Process Offensive vs. However, the abuse of process doctrine has been applied to preclude re-litigation of an issue even when the motive of the plaintiff does not appear to be improper. The leading U.S. case supporting non-mutual issue estoppel is Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore49. county court judge held that he was bound by the decision in La Fonciere to deny the admissibility of a certificate of conviction; however, he was of the opinion that a conviction might be admissible where civil proceedings are brought to claim the fruits of a crime. The evidence he heard was complete, his analysis was comprehensive and his finding certain.56. WebEvidence Code 788 EC Prior felony conviction [for a witness in a California trial]. The courts have not only viewed such matters under the established doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel, but also under the broader heading of the concept of abuse of process.44. According to Blair J.A., it was important to maintain some flexibility in the law regarding the use or weight afforded to prior criminal convictions in civil cases. An application for judicial review, requested by the City of Toronto, was granted. 623 ( Ibid.) To dismiss this suit as an abuse of process would attribute to the reasons of the trial judge a declaration of innocence, a verdict that was not legally open in the criminal proceedings.59. 9 Hollington, supra at p. 602 Canadian courts have considered how the conviction is going to be used when deciding the weight it will be given in the civil forum. The defendant driver was convicted of careless driving, contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 19307. The plaintiffs car was driven by the plaintiffs son. 44Ibid., paras 13 and 15 K.F. WebThis paper serves as an introduction to the fundamentals of evidence law, which will hopefully serve as a useful primer, or refresher, for junior lawyers confronted with various evidentiary issues from the outset of a proceeding to its conclusion at trial. Hence, the findings of fact in the criminal case are not subject to challenge in the civil action. decision by Doherty J.A. Additionally, our system of justice recognizes that re-litigating facts which have been determined by another court, risks inconsistent results and is a waste of resources, both of which offend the administration of justice. at para 31. There may be alternate reasons to plea that have nothing to do with guilt these include the cost of a criminal trial and the financial ability of the accused to respond; the convenience of a guilty plea as opposed to a trial, especially when a criminal conviction is not particularly important to the accused; and the avoidance of risk that a plea affords vs. the effect of a more serious criminal conviction, especially when a criminal conviction would be very important to the accused. The conviction is admitted as prima facie evidence of the material facts upon which the conviction was based. All provinces and territories (save Quebec) have amended their legislation to codify the admissibility of criminal convictions in civil matters.15 The admissibility has also been codified federally.16 In Ontario, the Evidence Act17, section 22.1, reads: 22.1(1) Proof that a person has been convicted or discharged anywhere in Canada is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime has been committed by the person, if, (a) no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has expired; or. 70, Simpson v Geswein, (2005), 38 C.P.C. Certain copies of health care provider's health records of patient admissible; right of patient, his attorney and authorized insurer to copies of such health records; subpoena; damages, costs and attorney fees. 57 2008 ONCA 427 (CanLII) 82 O.R. (2008)166 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [Evidence of prior felony conviction 17 years earlier for child molestation admissible in civil action]. H.C.), Re Del Core and OntarioCollege of Pharmacists, (1985), 51. (3d) 215 (Ont. Further, to link the defendants negligence and the actual accident (an issue that would not have been a requirement in the criminal case) would require the civil court to call substantially the same evidence. The question of how much weight ought to be afforded to the conviction depends on the nature and circumstances of each case and is a decision that should be left to the discretion of the court. Nevada Legislature The Alis subsequently initiated property damage and business loss claims under their private policies of insurance. The plaintiff, represented by Mr. Denning (as he then was), argued that the Court of Appeal ought to consider whether it was a legitimate inference that the defendant was negligent and if so, the matter would end. Are convictions only ever prima facie evidence of facts, always subject to rebuttal? In Robbins v. Wong (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 261, 273 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 337], the court observed: Given the significant distinctions between the In Polgrain, the additional findings of LaForme J. that the assault did not occur and that the actions of the nurse were acceptable nursing practice were contained in the reasons. LaForme, J.A. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the conviction was rightly rejected because a civil court would have to review all the evidence that was before the criminal court before it could give any weight to the prior conviction. 50 402 U.S. 313 (U.S. Ill. 1971) at p.649 39 Ibid., para 15 No. 1978, c.S-16, s.18; Manitoba Evidence Act, R.S.M. Lederer J. explained: It follows that it would be an abuse of process to allow the re-litigation of the determination made by LaForme J. that the assaults did not occur. A certificate of conviction was issued against the defendant driver by a magistrates court. C.A. Direccin: Calzada de Guadalupe No. 23 1999 CanLII 13177 (QC C.A.) If a defendant in a civil case is precluded from challenging the material facts of a prior criminal conviction query if she is effectively precluded from advancing a defence and whether that equally offends the administration of justice. 2002, c.78, s.27, Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. explicitly rejected the proposition that the conviction amounted to conclusive proof of the facts underlying the criminal conviction. The motion to strike the defence and the third party claim was granted by Sirois, J. However, it is hard to explain why a party who has participated in both proceedings (criminal and civil) should not be bound by the criminal decision just because the other civil party did not participate in the criminal proceeding. In Hunter, the plaintiffs had been convicted of murder. However, the Court of Appeal held that the integrity of the judicial process was an important principle to consider and for that reason allowed the appeal and set aside the order dismissing the civil action. (3d) 292 (Man Q.B. of Prior Conviction Hence, how could such evidence be given any weight? There seems little justification for concluding that such an issue cannot be raised by a plaintiff but may be raised in defence by a defendant. 53 C.U.P.E., supra at para 52 Somos una empresa dedicada a la prestacin de servicios profesionales de Mantenimiento, Restauracin y Remodelacin de Inmuebles Residenciales y Comerciales. 35 H.C.) 3363 (Ont C.A.) The doctrine of issue estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues decided in a prior proceeding. Evidence: Judgments and Pleas in Prior Criminal - Duke Although a contextual and flexible approach creates some uncertainty, it is a fair price for achieving a balance between finality and fairness concerns.54. Stated in the most general terms, a proper motion in limine is an evidentiary motion that seeks a determination as to whether to exclude (or admit) evidence before it is offered at trial. Motions in Limine in Civil 70 Further, the court also admitted evidence of an employees criminal conviction in a grievance hearing for wrongful dismissal brought by a union on behalf of an employee where clearly there was no mutuality of issues or parties. 52 [2001] O.J. 4.0 The Current Evolution of the Doctrine in Canada. Web314 [1932]) wherein the Court of Appeals held a partys prior conviction of a crime was admissible in a later civil action and the conviction was prima facie evidence of the facts involved, i.e., the facts upon which the conviction rested. As such, abuse of process focuses less on the interest of parties and more on the integrity of judicial decision making as a branch of the administration of justice.58. R. 62 (Sask. Further, re-litigating the same issue in a different court is wasteful of resources and risks inconsistent results and therefore uncertainty. Some provide that convictions on traffic charges are inadmis-sible. See, e.g., Authenticity and reasonableness of medical bills; presumption. It is the conclusion of this review that prior criminal convictions are correctly admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as prima facie evidence of the material facts upon which the convictions were made; but, the presumption is and should be rebuttable. The abuse of process doctrine originated in a decision of the House of Lords in Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midland Police et al.28 The case stands for the proposition that where there has been a final decision made by a criminal court against the plaintiff, it is an abuse of process for the plaintiff in a civil action to challenge the facts upon which that conviction was based. 36 Ibid., para 72 No conviction was tendered in evidence but the trial judge decided that the action should continue before him alone and the jury was discharged. (3d) 215 (Ont. Trial court decisions, on matters of fact, are generally afforded judicial deference by appellate courts. Lederer, J. granted the motion and refused to allow the issue of whether or not the assaults occurred to be re-litigated. The party who has participated in both proceedings has had the opportunity to challenge the charges; there is usually great incentive for an accused to vigorously oppose criminal charges; and the burden of proof is higher in criminal matters than in civil matters. A basic tenant of the Canadian legal system is the right to contest charges against you and defend any claim advanced against you. In Secretary of State for Canada v. Quinn12, a B.C. 587 (Eng. 16 Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. In white collar criminal matters it may often be the case that a party has been convicted abroad, (3d) 541 The plaintiff then commenced a separate action. Canadian courts essentially circumvented the rule in Hollington until the decision in Demeter v. British Pacific Life Insurance Company14, when Osler, J. held that Hollington v. Hewthorn was not binding upon a trial court in Ontario; was wrongly decided by the English Court of Appeal; and quite frankly was never authority for the proposition that a prior conviction is never admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding. Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. (3d) 391 C.A. This note examines the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings. 49 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. N.Y. 1979) At the trial level, Hollington6 involved a defendant driver of a vehicle involved in a collision with the plaintiffs car. Or are they conclusive evidence of facts that cannot be challenged in a subsequent civil action?