< Canadian Criminal Evidence < Opinion

General Principles

Lay opinion, being an opinion of a person who is not qualified as an expert, can be admissible in trial where the opinion constitutes a "compendious statement" of the observations of a witness in relation to matters of common experience where no special knowledge is required and the opinion is so close to fact that it is impossible to separate the two. [1] This is an exception to the rule that non-experts cannot give opinion evidence.

Lay opinion has been found to be valid in relation to the following:

  • the identification of handwriting, persons and things;[2]
  • apparent age;[3]
  • the bodily plight or condition of a person, including death and illness;[4]
  • the emotional state or state of mind of a person (e.g. distressed, angry, aggressive, affectionate or depressed, state of shock, fear, happiness); [5]
  • the condition of things—e.g. worn, shabby, used or new; [6]
  • certain questions of value;[7]
  • estimates of speed and distance;[8]
  • visual identification of persons in videos; [9]
  • visual identification of persons in pictures;[10]
  • visual identification of persons in court;[11]
  • visual identification of vehicles; [12]
  • audio identification; [13]
  • voice identification;[14]
  • identification of a shoe tread. [15]

A lay opinion that is formed from observations in close association and over a long period of time should be given considerable weight.[16]

See also: Ilina (2003), 172 CCC 240 (Man. CA)

  1. ↑ R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 SCR 819, 1982 CanLII 33 (SCC)
    R. v. Collins (2001), 160 CCC 85 (Ont. CA), 2001 CanLII 24124 (ON CA)
  2. ↑ See Graat
    CEA s. 8
    R. v. Pitre, [1933] SCR 69
    R. v. Abdi, (1997) 116 CCC 385 (ONCA)
  3. ↑ Graat
  4. ↑ Graat
  5. ↑ Graat
    See Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (2012 ed), Toronto: Carswell: 2012, at p. 462
    R. v. Falkenberg, (1995), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 307, 165 A.R. 16 (Alta. C.A.) at para 7
  6. ↑ Graat, supra
  7. ↑ Graat, supra
  8. ↑ Graat, supra
  9. ↑ R. v. Leaney, [1989] 2 SCR 393; R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 SCR 1197
  10. ↑ R. v. Ricards [1964] 2 CCC 19 (BCCA)
  11. ↑ R. v. Izzard (1990) 54 CCC 3d 252 (ONCA)
  12. ↑ R. v. Assoun (2006), 208 CCC 372
  13. ↑ R. v. Williams (1995), 98 CCC 160 (Ont.CA)
  14. ↑ R. v. Grabowski (1983) 8 CCCC 3d 78 (QCCA)
    R. v. Murray (1916) 27 CCC 247 (ABCA)
  15. ↑ R. v. Hill (1986), 32 CCC (Ont. CA)
  16. ↑ see Re: Price v. Spence, [1946] O.W.N. 80 at para. 17
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.