Keeping Up Is Hard to Do:
A Trial Judge’s Reading Blog


R. v. N.C., 2023 ONCJ 83, February 23, 2023, at paragraph 50, per De Filippis J.:      

This case is not one, like Schneider, in which a witness testified about one side of a telephone conversation that he overheard. In the present case, an authentic record of a discussion between two people is in evidence. There is little mystery about this record. It is an apology from one person to another. The statement is incomplete because the part of the discussion that reveals the reason for the apology is missing. However, there is no ambiguity here because the parties to the conversation both testified. Each provided a reason for the apology. When this testimony is considered with all other evidence, the context is clear. The apology means one of two things; that the defendant is sorry for the presence of [M] on the evening in question or he is sorry for sexually assaulting the complainant that night. In saying this, I repeat and make clear, that I understand that the criminal law standard of proof is not a credibility contest. I make these observations to explain why I find the incomplete statement to be admissible.