2. A copy of an entry in the book or record referred to in paragraph 1 shall be admissible in evidence under this Section only if it is first established that, at the time of registration, the book or record formed part of the ordinary books or records of the financial institution, that the entry was made in the ordinary course of business. the book or register is in the custody or control of the financial institution and the copy is a true copy, and such proof may be furnished by any person employed by the financial institution who has knowledge of the book or register or by the head or accountant of the financial institution; and may be made orally or by affidavit before a Commissioner or other person authorized to take affidavits. Side note:Inadmissible Answer vs. Witnesses (2) A judge holding a hearing under subsection 38.04 (5) or a court deciding an appeal or review of an order made under subsection 38.06 (1) to (3) may, any person who makes statements under paragraph 38.04(5)(d) and shall give to the Attorney General of Canada and, in proceedings under Part III of the National Defence Act, to the Minister of Defence: the opportunity to make ex parte submissions. The general principle on which this kind of evidence is accepted is that these are statements made in an extreme manner when the Party is about to die and all hope in this world is gone: when every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is led into it by the most powerful considerations. telling the truth; the situation so solemn and so terrible is regarded by law as an obligation equivalent to that imposed by a positive oath taken before a court” (R. v. Woodcock, 1789). Witness testimony is evidence obtained from anyone who is able to provide the court with information that will assist the court in deciding on charges.
This means that witnesses are not just people who are on the ground as victims of a crime or as observers of the criminal event. They may also be persons who can inform the court of the events that led to the crime or the activities that took place after the crime. (c) any copy or recording of evidence gathered in the course of other legal proceedings. 54. (1) A document purported to have been signed at the document or by a person empowered under any of paragraphs 52(a) to (d) to file, file or receive oaths, affidavits, statutory declarations or declarations, together with the person`s seal or the stamp of the person`s office or office with which the person is associated, Proof of an oath, affidavit, statutory declaration or declaration made, made or received by the person is admissible as evidence without proof of the seal or stamp, signature or official capacity of the person. 5. Where only part of a record is submitted under this Article, the court may examine any other part of the record and order that, together with that part of the record previously submitted in that manner, that part of the record produce all or part of the other part of the record as a registration it has submitted. 25 Where a book or other document is so public that it is admissible as evidence of its mere proper production and there is no other Act that makes its contents provable by means of a copy, a copy of the book or other document is admissible as evidence in a court or person who, ipso jure or with the consent of the parties, has the power to hear, receive and examine evidence where it is proved that it is a copy or extract purportedly certified by the official in whose custody the original was entrusted. 11. Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, a judge`s decision under subsections 8 to 10 is final and cannot be reviewed or appealed by a court. Limiting the taking of evidence in proceedings to what is relevant helps to ensure that the proceedings are completed in a timely manner and avoids arguments of diversion tactics that distract the parties from the real issues.
Lawyers can help their clients by explaining in advance what evidence is irrelevant and why. And people who come to court without a lawyer can improve their evidence by thinking ahead about what is logically related to which issues the judge has to decide and which are not. In the disclosure process, the decision to disclose or not to disclose rests exclusively with the prosecutor, and while police investigators may provide information and evidence to the prosecutor by requesting that the information be considered an exception to the disclosure rules, the final decision rests with the Crown. That is, even the Crown`s decision can be challenged by the defence, and that then becomes a final decision for the judge. The prosecutor will ask the police to fully disclose the evidence gathered during their investigation. 24. 1. Any person whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been violated or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for such relief as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
3. Where it is not possible or reasonably impossible to provide a document referred to in paragraph 1 or 2, a copy of the document accompanied by two documents, one of which is prepared by a person indicating why it is not possible or reasonably impossible to provide the document, and the other indicating the source: from which the copy certifying the authenticity of the copy and made by the person who made the copy was made, is admissible in evidence under this section in the same manner as if it were the original of the record if each document: It is important to note that the investigator will be held liable when presenting evidence to the court, providing an explanation of the circumstances in which the evidence is requested and seized.