“experience, background and knowledge obtained from working and dealing with signs related to traffic and safety issues provides him relevant knowledge of categories of traffic signs and the general purpose behind the erection of particular traffic signs on Toronto streets. In allowing the opinion evidence, among other factors, the court stated that There, the court held that the manager of the department responsible for the installation of traffic signs and placement of pavement markings in Toronto was able to give opinion evidence concerning the use of road signs and how those signs are chosen at a particular location.
#May a lay witness testify to a conlcusion professional
There, the court stated that the capacity of the officers to form that opinion “was part and parcel of their professional experience to assess the crime scene.” In Ontario, a similar line of reasoning was established in R. Ilina allowed two lay witness police officers to opine that a crime scene had been cleaned. For instance, the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in R. Nevertheless, there is some jurisprudence that suggests lay witnesses may opine on evidence not derived from ordinary experience where special circumstances exist. A lay person may therefore offer opinion evidence as to the speed of a car, but only an expert can offer opinion evidence as to the speed of an airplane. For example, persons of ordinary experience may be able to estimate the speed of a car, but not the speed of an airplane. If so, then the expert opinion rule should be used. The second prong asks whether the opinion evidence offered by the inspector requires special knowledge going beyond that of ordinary persons. (2) Is the inspector’s conclusion one that persons of ordinary experience are able to make? These witnesses were therefore in a better position than the trier of fact to determine the degree of impairment and could give the court real help.Therefore, where contemporaneous observation benefits the account of a set of facts, the first element in the above-noted test is probably satisfied.
For example, in Graat, where non-expert opinion evidence was admitted, the witnesses had an opportunity for contemporaneous, personal observation, and the opinion was based on perceived facts as to the manner of driving and the indicia of intoxication of the driver. The first prong turns on the added benefit of first-hand observation. (1) Is the inspector in a better position than the trier-of-fact to form the conclusion? Nevertheless, once satisfied by the evidence in a voir dire that the opinion evidence is admissible, the ultimate weight to be given to the opinion will be up to the trier of fact (i.e. (4) the opinions being expressed are merely a compendious mode of stating facts that are too subtle or complicated to be narrated as effectively without resort to conclusions.(3) the witness, although not an expert, has the necessary experiential capacity to make the conclusion and.
(2) the conclusion is one that persons of ordinary experience are able to make.(1) they are in a better position than the trier of fact to form the conclusion.127 as follows:Ī court may receive lay witness opinion evidence from a lay witness where: In that case, a police officer was able to opine on degree of intoxication.įollowing Graat, the circumstances in which lay-witness opinion evidence is admissible have been summarized by David Paciocco and Lee Stuesserin The Law of Evidence, 2 nd Ed., (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 1999) at p. Graat, the Supreme Court of Canada, for the first time, permitted an exception to the long-standing rule that lay-witnesses were excluded from providing opinion evidence. Can Ministry of Labour Inspectors or Officers (i.e.
0 kommentar(er)
