Revue du droit de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario sur ce que constitue des admissions

R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622

Lien vers la décision

[76] Some controversy exists about the basis upon which admissions are received in evidence in criminal proceedings. Are they received as an exception to the hearsay rule? Or are they not hearsay at all?

[77] In Morgan's view, admissions are received as an exception to the hearsay rule. But this requires proof of necessity and reliability or a listed exception that meets those requirements. However, the admissions rule furnishes no objective guarantee of trustworthiness. The declarations may be self-serving when made. The declarant need not have firsthand knowledge of the matters admitted. And the declarant is available, sitting in the courtroom: Edmund M. Morgan, "Basic Problems of Evidence", Joint Committee on Continuing Legal Education of the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association (1963), at pp. 265-66.

[78] Wigmore contended that a party's declaration had a special value when offered against the party. Admissions meet the requirement of the hearsay rule. The declaration is that of the opponent who does not need to cross-examine himself: John H. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 4(Chadbourn Rev., 1972), at § 1048, p. 5.

[79] Strahorn classified all admissions offered against the party, whether words or acts, as conduct offered as circumstantial evidence, rather than for its assertive testimonial value. The circumstantial value lies in its inconsistency with the party's claim at trial: John S. Strahorn Jr., "A Reconsideration of the Hearsay Rule and Admissions" (1937), 85 U. Pa. L. Rev. 484, at p. 576.

[80] In Evans, Sopinka J. said that the rationale for admitting evidence of admissions has a different basis than the other hearsay [page627] exceptions, if the evidence is hearsay at all. Admissions do not require independent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. It is enough that the admissions are tendered against the party making them. Thus, admissibility is grounded on the theory of the adversary system; that what a party has previously said (or done) can be admitted against that party in whose mouth it ill lies to complain of the unreliability of their own statements: Evans, at para. 24.

[81] In subsequent authorities, the Supreme Court appears to confirm that admissions are received as exceptions to the hearsay rule. Unless made to persons in authority, an accused's admissions are presumptively admissible: R. v. T. (S.G.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 688, [2010] S.C.J. No. 20, 2010 SCC 20, at para. 20; R. v. Mapara, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358, [2005] S.C.J. No. 23, 2005 SCC 23, at para. 31; R. v. Terry, supra, at para. 28; R. v. Waite, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 341, [2014] S.C.J. No. 17, 2014 SCC 17, at paras. 3-4.

[82] An admission tendered by the opposite party that is relevant and material may be excluded where its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value: Terry, at para. 28.