These supplemental capsules are designed to provide students (and lawyers) with a bit more detail on topics I tend not to cover in my evidence course. In addition to the material here, check out the following Video Blogs on:
- The Principled Approach to Evidence Law
- Prior Sexual History (section 276 of the Criminal Code, the “rape shield” law);
- The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (section 5(2) of the Canada Evidence Act);
- Similar Fact Evidence
Bad Character Evidence in Criminal Cases: Special Issues – January 2014
The Co-Conspirator’s Exception to the Hearsay Rule – July 2015
Corroboration: Overview (Part 1 of 3 on Corroboration) – January 2017
Corroboration as a Statutory Condition (Part 2 of 3 on Corroboration) – January 2017
Corroboration: Vetrovec Warnings (Part 3 of 3 on Corroboration) – January 2017
Direct vs Circumstantial Evidence – August 2016
Electronic Evidence – September 2016
This capsule examines three key rules that come into play when you tender “electronic” evidence (think e-mails, e-records, You Tube clips, Facebook posts, etc): the authentication rule, the best evidence rule, and the hearsay rule.
Hearsay: The Residual Exception and the Use of Corroborative Evidence – August 2017
Marital Communications Privilege – August 2015
Section 13 of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms – The Privilege against Self-Incrimination – May 2016
Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: When is Evidence “Obtained in a Manner” that Infringes the Charter and Capable of Being Excluded? – May 2017
As always, a few caveats:
- Needless to say, this is not legal advice. It is designed to provide introductory explanations of certain topics in the law of evidence.
- These materials were designed for my students taking part in the Flipped Classroom – as such they are NOT supposed to be comprehensive or exhaustive of the subject.
- They were made with time constraints in mind. There are errors throughout, and though I feel confident about the product generally, I did not attempt to correct every mistake made. The goal was to put a good product together in a short period of time.
- Often, in the interests of time, certain points are generalized. This doesn’t mean they’re “wrong”, but nuances are often fleshed out in the course materials or in class. Rather than include caveats with every sentence, I sometimes make broad generalizations even though I’m aware there might be exceptions that can occasionally arise. Again, the goal is to promote a generalized understanding that provides a platform for deeper learning.
- I will heartily disavow any attempt to rely upon these in conflict with another Professor, judge, lawyer, etc. Thus, anyone who says “yes, but Professor Sankoff said X”… will receive no support from me! Especially where exams are concerned, it is always good practice to follow your Professor’s view of the law. If this material helps you, by all means use it, but do so with care.