Seeking More Than Truth: A Rationalization of the Principled Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Authors

  • Shawn Moen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/alr149

Abstract

Canadian treatment of hearsay evidence has changed significantly in the preceding 20 years. Since 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a more flexible approach to hearsay evidence through the development of the "principled exception." In this article, the author examines the purpose of evidence law and trial procedure from three different perspectives: as a tempered "truth-seeking" process, as a medium to communicate the acceptability of verdicts, and as a tool to regulate the epistemic and ethical conduct of decision-makers. He suggests that these three purposes are complementary and examines the principled exception to the hearsay rule using this pluralist approach. Overall, the author concludes that while the principled exception is primarily directed at promoting "truth-seeking," the necessity criterion and the current procedural format are also designed to enhance the communicative role of the trial process and to assist in the deliberation by the adjudicator. As such, the principled approach has been designed to seek more than the "truth."

Author Biography

Shawn Moen

Practising lawyer, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; LL.B. (Sask.), LL.M. (Osgoode). This article was prepared during my graduate studies at Osgoode Hall Law School. Thanks are owed to Professor Francois Tanguay-Renaud for his helpful comments made during its research and completion.

Downloads

Issue

Vol 48, No 3

Section

Articles

License

For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:

  1. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
  2. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
  3. Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
  4. Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.

To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.