Hearsay Evidence at a Tribunal: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
==Re B and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1987 CanLII 4187 (ON SC)<ref name="B"/>==
==Re B and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1987 CanLII 4187 (ON SC)<ref name="B"/>==


Counsel for the appellant appeals upon three grounds:
(1) The hearing officer found against the appellant on the hearsay evidence of June De Maat (some of it hearsay upon hearsay) who repeated the complaints and later denials made to her by Haley B; and that in so doing there was a denial of natural justice. This hearsay evidence was admissible because s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484, is made applicable to the hearing by s. 52(14) of the Act. Counsel for the appellant submitted that this case would come within the dictum of <i>Galligan J. in Lischka v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1982), 1982 CanLII 1840 (ON SC), 37 O.R. (2d) 134</i><ref name="Lischka"/>, particularly at p. 135, as follows:
::It is my opinion that the evidence of the police officer, albeit from a technical point of view hearsay and opinion, was admissible because of the provisions of s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484. I am not prepared to say that there could be no case in which admission of hearsay and opinion evidence could not amount to a denial of natural justice even though its admission is authorized by s. 15. I do not think that this is one of those cases.
(2) That the hearing officer erred in failing to give effect to s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(3) That the hearing officer erred in failing to find that the alleged misconduct was not a reportable abuse pursuant to s. 52(2) of the Child Welfare Act.




<ref name="B">Re B and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1987 CanLII 4187 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1d1k>, retrieved on 2021-12-13</ref>
<ref name="B">Re B and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1987 CanLII 4187 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1d1k>, retrieved on 2021-12-13</ref>
<ref name="Lischka">Lischka v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 1982 CanLII 1840 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1gw2>, retrieved on 2021-12-13</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 16:39, 13 December 2021


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-05-04
CLNP Page ID: 1826
Page Categories: [Evidence Law]
Citation: Hearsay Evidence at a Tribunal, CLNP 1826, <58>, retrieved on 2024-05-04
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2021/12/13


Re B and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1987 CanLII 4187 (ON SC)[1]

Counsel for the appellant appeals upon three grounds:

(1) The hearing officer found against the appellant on the hearsay evidence of June De Maat (some of it hearsay upon hearsay) who repeated the complaints and later denials made to her by Haley B; and that in so doing there was a denial of natural justice. This hearsay evidence was admissible because s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484, is made applicable to the hearing by s. 52(14) of the Act. Counsel for the appellant submitted that this case would come within the dictum of Galligan J. in Lischka v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1982), 1982 CanLII 1840 (ON SC), 37 O.R. (2d) 134[2], particularly at p. 135, as follows:

It is my opinion that the evidence of the police officer, albeit from a technical point of view hearsay and opinion, was admissible because of the provisions of s. 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 484. I am not prepared to say that there could be no case in which admission of hearsay and opinion evidence could not amount to a denial of natural justice even though its admission is authorized by s. 15. I do not think that this is one of those cases.

(2) That the hearing officer erred in failing to give effect to s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(3) That the hearing officer erred in failing to find that the alleged misconduct was not a reportable abuse pursuant to s. 52(2) of the Child Welfare Act.


[1] [2]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Re B and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1987 CanLII 4187 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1d1k>, retrieved on 2021-12-13
  2. 2.0 2.1 Lischka v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 1982 CanLII 1840 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/g1gw2>, retrieved on 2021-12-13