evidence of prior convictions in civil proceedings

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. 55 2007 Can LII 41437 (ON S.C.) explicitly rejected the proposition that the conviction amounted to conclusive proof of the facts underlying the criminal conviction. Further, re-litigating the same issue in a different court is wasteful of resources and risks inconsistent results and therefore uncertainty. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AS EVIDENCE IN CIVIL ACTIONS ALTHOUGH a plea of guilty in a prior criminal prosecution was ad-missible at common law, the record of the judgment was not 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. 26 [1993] R.R.A. All rights reserved. 22 437, Bryan A. Garner, editor, Blacks Law Dictionary 9th ed. for the 3-judge panel explained in Polgrain57, upon considering the reasons of the Supreme Court in Toronto (City) v C.U.P.E. The claims were denied and the Alis initiated a civil case against Guardian Insurance and Royal Insurance. Rosenberg J.A. 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. No. Some provide that convictions on traffic charges are inadmis-sible. H.L.) 25 No. The civil court would not know about the evidence that was before the criminal court, nor the arguments that were addressed, nor what influenced the court in arriving at its decision. He may or may not give evidence at trial and the plaintiff should not have to reprove the entire offence in the first instance. In Hunter, the plaintiffs had been convicted of murder. 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. 18 Bryan A. Garner, editor, Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th ed. Wendy Moore Mandel. Admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings. In English v. Richmond and Pulver13, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of a guilty plea in a prior criminal proceeding. In Simpson v. Geswein51, the defendant was convicted of assaulting the plaintiff with a weapon. Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires courts to admit evidence That is, I find it difficult to see how a judge in a civil proceeding, before whom a mere preponderance of evidence is required to prove fraud, can conclude that two persons found guilty of arson following a trial in which their guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, should be able to retry the case, so to speak, based on the identical evidence, with the result that two contradictory decisions are reached. (3d) 391 C.A. It is being applied in cases regardless of whether the intended use of the conviction is for offensive or defensive purposes. Religious Beliefs or Opinions; Rule 611. 20 Ibid., p. 22 If the prior proceeding was tainted by fraud or untruth, doubt can be cast on the veracity of the decision reached in that proceeding. According to Steele, J.: Where a convicted criminal, as a plaintiff, brings a civil action, it may be an abuse of process of the court. 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. There are several ways to impeach a witness, which include: 1) showing that the witness is biased for or against a certain party, 2) showing that the witness has made prior inconsistent statements, 3) showing that the witness had a physical or mental limitation, and therefore could not have accurately perceived the events he is testifying 1996, c. 124, s.15, Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. According to Lord Diplock: The abuse of process which the instant case exemplifies is the initiation of proceedings in a court of justice for the purpose of mounting a collateral attack upon a final decision against the intending plaintiff, which has been made by another court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings in which the intending plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the decision in the court in which it was made.29. The parties are not the same in the criminal case and the civil case; the issues, even when similar, always have different consequences; criminal courts and civil courts employ varying standards of proof (a judgment of a civil court need only be based on proof to a balance of probabilities while a judgment of a criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt); and the procedures followed regarding the use and admission of evidence and the review of decisions are different in the criminal and civil forums. 99-1153, Andreadis et al v Pinto et al, 98 O.R. Re-litigation in some circumstances may be necessary to uphold the integrity of the justice system (as outlined in C.U.P.E.) The employee, through his union, filed a grievance, challenging his dismissal. The court found that to permit the plaintiffs a further opportunity to challenge the decision of the criminal court through the civil case was an abuse of process. Where the victim brings the action against the convicted criminal, nothing stops the defendant from raising the defence that he did not do it. The standards governing admissibility of prior convictions in civil cases are different from those in criminal proceedings. 8.35. Webevidence of anything recent. K.F. The rationale for this anti-rule was discussed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Jorgensen v. New Media (Auckland) Ltd.21 and has been adopted by a number of Canadian authorities. Rule 901. Counsel for Peter Demeter argued that the principle established in Hollington v. Hewthorn applied in Ontario and answered the defence on all issues. 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. Leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court25. 2000, c. A-18, s.24; Saskatchewan Evidence Act, R.S.S. The House bill provides that evidence of a guilty or nolo contendere plea, of an offer of either plea, or of statements made in connection with such pleas or offers of such pleas, is 1989, c.154, s.58, Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. In C.U.P.E., the motivation of the employee was to challenge his dismissal, not to overturn his criminal conviction. ), Sopinka, J. et al. Sanitiza tu hogar o negocio con los mejores resultados. (a) Any of the following documents or records shall be admissible as evidence in proving a criminal conviction: (1) A record of judgment and conviction; (2) A record of plea, verdict and Justice D. Brown explained that to allow re-litigation would be an abuse of process. Nonetheless, the example was given and the decision made to refuse the admission of a criminal conviction. The conviction should not be conclusive but the onus of proving that the conviction was wrong should be on the person so alleging. by Madame Justice Arbour as follows: First, there can be no assumption that re-litigation will lead to a more accurate result. When a defendant in a criminal action seeks to suppress evidence of prior convictions, There are a number of statutes controlling the use which may be made of the prior conviction even as evidence of the facts which must have been found in the criminal trial. An individual convicted of a criminal charge should be afforded the opportunity to rebut the presumption with available evidence, but must first overcome the presumption against him. 70, Simpson v Geswein, (2005), 38 C.P.C. The decision evolved into a rule governing the admissibility of criminal convictions in civil trials. In opposition to the summary judgment motion, the defendant filed an affidavit denying the assault and alleging self-defence. 1973, c. E-11, s.20; Prince Edward Island Evidence Act, R.S.P.E.I. 54 Trang v. Alberta (Edmonton Remand Centre), 2002 ABQB 658 at para 53 437 and Garry Watson, Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality (1990), 69 Can. 14 (1983), 150 D.L.R. explained that allowing Mr. Demeter to do so would be an abuse of the process of the courts: the use of a civil action to initiate a collateral attack on a final decision of a criminal court of competent jurisdiction in an attempt to re-litigate an issue already tried is an abuse of the process of the court.33. Para nosotros usted es lo ms importante, le ofrecemosservicios rpidos y de calidad. The circumstances under which evidence of prior proceedings should be adduced was addressed in the C.U.P.E. North P. explained: [P]roof of conviction while not conclusive of guilt, is evidence admissible in proof of the fact of guilt. 43 (1986), 48 Sask. A reason for requiring mutuality in order to apply issue estoppel is that a party in a civil action should only be bound by the decision in a prior criminal proceeding if he/she was a party in the criminal action and therefore had the right to challenge the charges. Our courts, quite rightly, have trended away from these bright line rules in an effort to get it right. O.R. ), Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. Arguably, the adoption of the Hollington rule in Canada was confirmed by a 1943 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in La Fonciere Compagnie dAssurance de France v. Perras et al.11 In La Fonciere, the plaintiff claimed coverage for property damage under a policy of private insurance. The trial judge, Justice Jean-Guy Riopel, held that he was not bound by the criminal judgment and found the evidence given by the Alis to be at least partially credible and allowed the action, in part.26 The defendants appealed. ), Ali et 124558 Canada Inc. v. Cie dAssurance Guardian et Cie dAssurance Royale, J.E. However, Mr. Denning urged the appellate court to consider that the fact of the defendants conviction was prima facie evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence. Webpractice to allow antecedent convictions into subsequent civil proceedings as substantive evidence. 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. In most jurisdictions within the United States, a criminal conviction is not only admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding (based on the same wrong) it is determinative of the facts on which the criminal decision was based. 1.2 The Hollington Rule Applied in Canada. 847, 53 O.R. ), Parklane Hoisery Co. v Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. N.Y. 1979), Polgrain v The Toronto East General Hospital, 2007 Can LII 41437 (ON S.C.), Q. v Minto Management Ltd., (1984), 46 O.R. A prior criminal conviction could not be tendered in a civil action as evidence of the material facts upon which the conviction was based. 6 . 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. Issue estoppel has four requirements: The requirement for mutuality is likely the greatest reason why issue estoppel is rarely applied. 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). 2002, c.78, s.27, Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 16 Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1006 (Fed. Evidence of prior convictions is admissible in civil matters where it is relevant. Fairness could dictate that a conviction based on a guilty plea be afforded less weight than a conviction where there was a full consideration of the issue on the merits. Although, if the facts upon which the conviction was made went unchallenged (despite the accused having the means and opportunity to challenge the facts) it is arguable that this conviction should have greater weight in the civil matter. 10 Ibid., p. 593 Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction; Rule 610. 1990, c.E.22, ss.22.1, as amended by S.O. Osler, J. held that Hollington v. Hewthorn is not authoritative, even in its own jurisdiction, on the question of whether or not the identical question already decided in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction can be raised in a subsequent civil action by a party against whom the question has been decided.31. Webof relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time. 1999 Butterworths Canada Ltd., June 1999, Toronto (City) v C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. She will be subject to cross-examination. However, the prima facie weight afforded to criminal convictions is still subject to a right to rebuttal. In K.F. Once admitted as prima facie proof, the civil proceeding may then commence to test the evidence and create a ruling about the weight the evidence should be afforded. Web Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Felony Conviction. A defendant in a civil case should not be precluded from raising the defence that he/she did not do it. Since its creation, the rule in Hollington v. Hewthorn has been influential in many jurisdictions, although widely criticized. 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. In the exercise of its discretion, the court should consider not only the positions of the parties but also the goal of enhancing the administration of justice generally. 3363 (Ont C.A.) Hilbery J. also ruled against the admissibility of a statement made to the investigating police by the driver of the plaintiffs vehicle (now deceased). 56 Ibid., p.10 The House 4 . The defence appealed the decision. Bar Rev. Additionally, persons who did not participate in the criminal matter, but have a legitimate interest in the civil outcome, should be afforded the benefit of the presumption. The finding on judicial review was upheld by the Superior Court35 and by the Supreme Court of Canada. The doctrine of abuse of process has been expanded to apply to not only criminal offences but also to provincial regulatory offences. 1990, c.E.22, ss.22.1, as amended by S.O. explained: Since the evidence of prior convictions affords only prima facie proof of guilt it follows that its effect may be countered in a variety of ways. In Polgrain, a nurse was criminally charged with the sexual assault of a severely disabled and totally dependant patient in the intensive care unit at the Toronto East General Hospital. Writing Used to Refresh a Witnesss Memory; Rule 613. MacKinnon A.C.J.O. (2d) 756 (Ont. 2 This rule of evidence is often used in criminal trials, but is criminally underutilized in civil trials. However, the Master hearing the summary judgment motion granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. Webin subsequent civil proceedings arising from the same facts as the criminal prosecution but to which the state is not a party. Judicial bias, jury impropriety, and investigation errors can be used to counter the prima facie proof that a conviction holds. 82 O.R. The plaintiff argued that if the appellate court should find that there was no evidence to support the judgment, there should be a new trial where the previously rejected evidence tendered by the plaintiff (the criminal conviction) could be admitted. The Court of Appeal held that the prior criminal conviction was rightly rejected as evidence in the civil case. To jump from a rule positively excluding evidence of prior criminal convictions (Hollington) to a rule allowing prior criminal convictions to be conclusive proof of material facts underlying the conviction, would be highly undesirable. 27 J.E. If the conviction is used offensively by the plaintiff to establish the defendants liability, the conviction is treated as prima facie proof, subject to rebuttal. 52 [2001] O.J. In many cases, a partys criminal The Parklane decision confirmed an earlier decision of the United States Supreme Court in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation where the court explained: In any lawsuit where a defendant, because of the mutuality principle, is forced to present a complete defense on the merits to a claim which the plaintiff has fully litigated and lost in a prior action, there is an arguable misallocation of resources.

100 Facts About Heaven, The Falls Banquet Wedding Cost, How To Pay For Nursing Home During Penalty Period, Articles E