Accordingly, while an accused may be acquitted in a criminal matter because the test of beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, he/she could still be found guilty in a civil matter on exactly the same evidence, where the burden of proof is lower. 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. Criminal convictions are consistently admissible as prima facie proof of the material facts underlying the conviction where the prior criminal conviction is sought to be used by the injured party in the civil action, to establish the fault of the party convicted. Additionally, our system of justice recognizes that re-litigating facts which have been determined by another court, risks inconsistent results and is a waste of resources, both of which offend the administration of justice. 77 Authenticity and reasonableness of medical bills; presumption. Blair J.A. The plaintiff, represented by Mr. Denning (as he then was), argued that the Court of Appeal ought to consider whether it was a legitimate inference that the defendant was negligent and if so, the matter would end. 1988, c.E-11, s.18, Saskatchewan Evidence Act, R.S.S. 1995, c.6, s.6, Manitoba Evidence Act, R.S.M. Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires courts to admit evidence The trial judge refused to give the conviction preclusive effect and afforded the conviction prima facie value. Webcivil litigation. The defendant driver was convicted of careless driving, contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 19307. At the trial level, Hollington6 involved a defendant driver of a vehicle involved in a collision with the plaintiffs car. The state can prove the existence of the prior conviction through self-authenticating court records, but must also prove the defendant is the same person previously However, in the trial decision of Polgrain v. The Toronto East General Hospital55, this principle was watered down because, although it did not change the rule on the inadmissibility of an acquittal in a civil case, it did open the door to allowing findings of fact in support of the acquittal to be admitted in a subsequent civil proceeding. Webof relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time. The Hollington rule provided that evidence of an earlier criminal conviction was not admissible in a subsequent civil action as proof that the person convicted was guilty of the conduct constituting the offence. Further, the court also admitted evidence of an employees criminal conviction in a grievance hearing for wrongful dismissal brought by a union on behalf of an employee where clearly there was no mutuality of issues or parties. (2008)166 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 [Evidence of prior felony conviction 17 years earlier for child molestation admissible in civil action]. 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. Nor do the respective evidence Acts specify the evidentiary effect of the conviction where the convicted party seeks to challenge the facts underlying the criminal offence in the subsequent civil proceeding. Police investigation determined that the fire was intentionally set. Hence, to give full legal significance for abuse of process purposes to matters that were not essential to the decision would confuse the roles of the criminal and civil courts60. C.A.) When a defendant in a criminal action seeks to suppress evidence of prior convictions, The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from these findings. Writing Used to Refresh a Witnesss Memory; Rule 613. C.A.) The appellate courts applied the doctrine of abuse of process and overruled the Arbitrators decision to re-litigate the issue. v. Pinto et al.38, Justice D. Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the provincial evidence legislation which permits the admissibility of criminal convictions in civil matters also applies to permit the admissibility of offences under provincial regulatory legislation. 3363 (Ont. 847, 53. Bar Rev. Instruction about the treatment of criminal convictions in subsequent civil actions was provided by the English Court of Appeal in the case of Hollington v. F. Hewthorn & Co.5. The abuse of process doctrine originated in a decision of the House of Lords in Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midland Police et al.28 The case stands for the proposition that where there has been a final decision made by a criminal court against the plaintiff, it is an abuse of process for the plaintiff in a civil action to challenge the facts upon which that conviction was based. Some provide that convictions on traffic charges are inadmis-sible. Bar Rev. 623. 5 Ibid. The defendant pilot was found negligent; the defendant corporation was found vicariously liable; and the third party was found not to have been contributorily negligent for having caused the crash. 1987, c.E 150, s.22; New Brunswick Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1988, c.E-11, s.18; Nova Scotia Evidence Act R.S.N.S. Therefore, proof of the conviction was no more than proof that another court came to a conclusion that the defendant was guilty. C.A.) (4th) 318, [1984] O.J. 1995, c.6, s.6 Although a contextual and flexible approach creates some uncertainty, it is a fair price for achieving a balance between finality and fairness concerns.54. The conviction is not conclusive but is prima facie evidence that the defendant may rebut. Notice and Hearing Requirement. Bar Rev. 70, Simpson v Geswein, (2005), 38 C.P.C. However, on its facts, La Fonciere can only stand for the proposition that the decision of a criminal court cannot constitute res judicata before a civil court. Following the conviction, the City of Toronto fired the employee from his job. Character Evidence. 1990, c. C.25 (3d) 215 (Ont. 9 Hollington, supra at p. 602 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. Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 623 ), M Garry Watson, Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality (1990), 69 Can. A witnesss credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witnesss reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. The court (in both Hunter and Demeter) focused on the motive of the plaintiff to challenge the criminal judgment (despite having exhausted all avenues of appeal), as the grounds to refuse any challenge of the prior criminal conviction. 623, Michael Herman and Gerald Hayden, Issue Estoppel: Mutuality of Parties Reconsidered (1986), 64 Can. T.D.)61. It is possible to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Osler J.32 and found that the appellant was seeking to re-litigate the very issue that was decided against him in his criminal trial. Hence the plaintiff could not call any witness about the circumstances of the collision and was unable to provide any direct evidence of the defendants negligence. Our courts, quite rightly, have trended away from these bright line rules in an effort to get it right. 587 (Eng. 3 The deference given to the trial judges or the jurys fact-finding does not extend to errors in interpretation of law. 146 N.W.2d 505 (1966), 66 Mich.L.Rev. The weight of the conviction can range from persuasive evidence of the criminal finding and of the facts supporting the finding to conclusive evidence of the facts supporting the finding which cannot be rebutted because to do so would adversely affect the administration of justice. (2d) 583 at p. 589 (Ont. 165, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. RhoxallPharma Inc., [2002] The only witnesses of the collision were the two drivers. 44Ibid., paras 13 and 15 New evidence that was not available at the time of the prior criminal trial can be used in a subsequent civil action to challenge the underlying basis of the criminal conviction. All levels of Canadian courts have found that the right to challenge a conviction in a subsequent civil action is not absolute. However, Lederer, J. opined that Justice LaForme made findings on a balance of probabilities in the criminal case and was satisfied that there was a full and complete hearing on the issue of the alleged assaults. (3d) 249 Justice Thibault held that the criminal judgment was admissible in evidence in the civil matter and explained: Faced, as in the present case, with a reasoned criminal judgment establishing that the Alis intentionally set fire to their building to collect the insurance, it seems difficult to me, in the absence of new evidence, that the judge in the civil proceeding should completely ignore this fact and reassess the evidence, which is otherwise strictly identical, and reach a solution that is clearly contradictory. Webevidence of anything recent. C.A.) The criminal judgment is a legal fact that none can ignore, that is relevant, and whose probative value must be considered. In Andreadis et al. Further, Peter Demeters criminal conviction was confirmed by the Court of Appeal; an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a point of law was dismissed; and an application to the Minister of Justice on grounds that new evidence was available, was rejected. WebEvidence Code 788 EC Prior felony conviction [for a witness in a California trial]. 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. No. 1973, c. E-11, s.20; Prince Edward Island Evidence Act, R.S.P.E.I. The Civil Evidence Act refers specifically to convictions by a court in the UK. 17 Evidence Act, R.S.O. 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 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. The Supreme Court did not say that a prior criminal conviction is not admissible as evidence of the material facts on which the conviction is based; rather it found that in the Quebec Civil Code res judicata did not apply to make the criminal court finding binding in a subsequent civil case. 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. 1990, c.E-16, s.13, North West Territories Evidence Act, R.S.W.N.W.T. 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. This article describes the Iowa rules of evidence regarding the admissibility of criminal convictions in a civil case. 437 and Garry Watson, Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality (1990), 69 Can. 1978, c.S-16, s.18; Manitoba Evidence Act, R.S.M. K.F. Under the doctrine of abuse of process, prior criminal convictions are admitted in subsequent civil actions as conclusive proof of material facts. The plaintiff then commenced a civil action for the damage done to his vehicle in the collision. The facts upon which the conviction was based are not rebuttable because to allow the facts to be challenged would adversely affect the administration of justice. As a result, there is debate about whether or not the mutuality requirement is appropriate.47. The Evolution of Maryland Case Law The near century-old case of Mattingly v. Montgomery8 foreshadowed the blending of issues that can occur when using criminal convictions as evidence. 47 see Michael Herman and Gerald Hayden, Issue Estoppel: Mutuality of Parties Reconsidered (1986), 64 Can. ), Ali et 124558 Canada Inc. v. Cie dAssurance Guardian et Cie dAssurance Royale, J.E. When considering the historical application of the abuse of process doctrine to prevent re-litigation only when a convicted party commences a civil action, Justice Wakeling explained: It is usual to consider that the concept of abuse of process is applicable only to a plaintiffs claim to prevent the commencement of certain types of actions, but there is no apparent reason for its restriction to such circumstances when it is considered that the purpose is to prevent the raising of an issue which has already been squarely before the courts once before and decision rendered. Prima facie evidence is evidence which, unless disproved or rebutted, would be sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption.18 Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable. (2d) 1 (Ont. It would be highly undesirable to replace [the] arbitrary rule [in Hollington v. Hewthorn] by prescribing equally rigid rules to replace it.20. Justice Rosenberg rightly upheld the administration of justice by reigning in the application of the abuse of process doctrine. It is both unnecessary and imprudent to attempt any exhaustive enumeration. 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. 1987, c.E 150, s.22, New Brunswick Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. Justice D. Brown explained that to allow re-litigation would be an abuse of process. C.A. Hence the intended use of the conviction was not a factor in applying the doctrine of abuse of process. In the Ali case, Mr. Ali and his son operated a restaurant under the name Bon B.B.Q. The restaurant was destroyed by fire. An important issue in the criminal trial was whether or not their confessions to police following the crime were voluntary and whether the confessions should therefore be admitted during the criminal trial. 1990, c.E.22, ss.22.1, as amended by 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. In Canada, the abuse of process doctrine was adopted and applied in Demeter v. British Pacific Life Insurance Company30 to prevent a previously convicted plaintiff from re-litigating an issue previously determined by the criminal court. Evidence of prior convictions is admissible in civil matters where it is relevant. Appellate courts do not decide whether a jury made the correct assessment, rather they only consider if the assessment is beyond the scope of anything that could be accepted as reasonable.2 Appellate courts carry heavily the burden of rejecting a lower courts decision on issues of fact3 because it is recognized that trial judges have advantages when determining facts; drawing inferences from facts; and assessing the credibility of witnesses. A prior criminal conviction could not be tendered in a civil action as evidence of the material facts upon which the conviction was based. The nurse was assigned to care for patients in the intensive care unit and two employees of the hospital believed that they witnessed Mrs. Polgrain being sexually assaulted by the nurse on two separate occasions. The defendants argued that there was no fraud or collusion in connection with obtaining his conviction and there was no new evidence establishing his innocence that came to the attention of the plaintiff (since his conviction) that could not have been reasonably determined by the plaintiff prior to his conviction. The appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Previous criminal convictions are generally admissible in subsequent civil proceedings and are considered prima facie proof of the material facts underlying the conviction. The plaintiff brought a civil action for damages arising out of the assault and moved for summary judgment, relying on the certificate of conviction and a transcript of the criminal courts reasons. Under the Federal Rule of Evidence (often referred to as the FRE) section 609, prior criminal convictions can only be used if the conviction was punishable by more than 13 [1956] S.C.R. (3d) 701, Bomac Construction Ltd. v Stevenson (1986), 48 Sask. 2 Vieczorek v. Piersma (1987), 58 O.R. The trial judge subsequently dismissed the plaintiffs action but disregarded the evidence of the plea of guilty in coming to his conclusion. (Ont. 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. Para nosotros usted es lo ms importante, le ofrecemosservicios rpidos y de calidad. The law's story about prior conviction evidence is also apparent in the rules of evidence, which single out prior convictions with a special rule governing their admissibility, a testament to their sui generis status. Bar Rev. Justice Brown explained that, the policy reasons supporting the facilitation of the proof of certain conduct through the mechanism of s. 22.1 [the section of the Ontario Evidence Act that dispenses with the need to prove, in a civil proceeding, the essential facts established by the finding of liability in a criminal proceeding] would apply equally to both federal and provincial offences.39. 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). The third party obtained a judgment against the defendants after a three-day jury trial. 21 [1969] N.Z.LR. As such, abuse of process focuses less on the interest of parties and more on the integrity of judicial decision making as a branch of the administration of justice.58. The plaintiff then commenced a separate action. 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. 25 No. No conviction was tendered in evidence but the trial judge decided that the action should continue before him alone and the jury was discharged. If the concern is a valid one, it should not matter by what process the concern is raised.45. 39 Ibid., para 15 H.C.J. The prior criminal conviction was afforded such weight that it was akin to conclusive evidence of the facts. The insurance defendants pled that Mr. Demeter should be estopped in the civil action from raising again the issue of his criminal responsibility for the death of his wife, or in the alternative, that it was an abuse of process for him to raise the issue of his criminal responsibility again in another court. The party seeking to introduce the new evidence must be able to prove however that the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the prior criminal proceeding. The party who has participated in both proceedings has had the opportunity to challenge the charges; there is usually great incentive for an accused to vigorously oppose criminal charges; and the burden of proof is higher in criminal matters than in civil matters. The appeal of the Masters judgment was dismissed by Krindle J. on the grounds that although the certificate of conviction was not conclusive, it was strong prima facie proof and the defendant failed to deliver any evidence to cast doubt on the facts.
Is $500,000 A Big Inheritance,
Guilderland School Closing,
Fun Races To Do With Friends,
Mucus In Baby Poop Formula-fed,
Nashville Travel Guide By Mail,
Articles E
evidence of prior convictions in civil proceedings
