R. v. R.D. Longard Services Ltd.

R. v. R.D. Longard Services Ltd.

Necessity was satisfied because the declarant was deceased; reliability was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities because the only witness who reported the call failed to mention it to the OHSA investigator and did not report it until trial, other witnesses were neutral or lacked recollection, and there were insufficient indicators of trustworthiness; therefore the utterances are inadmissible hearsay under the principled approach.

Citation
2015 NSPC 7
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: R.D. Longard Services Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire During Trial on Hearsay Admissibility (khelawon Application)
Outcome
Crown application dismissed; utterances inadmissible hearsay
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Khelawon Principled Approach, Necessity and Reliability, Threshold Reliability, Admission of Statements of Deceased, Workplace Fatality
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Occupational Health and Safety Law Procedural Law Hearsay Khelawon Principled Approach Necessity and Reliability Threshold Reliability +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

R.D. Longard Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire During Trial on Hearsay Admissibility (khelawon Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether utterances by a deceased declarant are admissible under the principled hearsay exception
  2. 2 Whether the necessity criterion is satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the reliability (threshold reliability) criterion is satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Necessity was satisfied because the declarant was deceased; reliability was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities because the only witness who reported the call failed to mention it to the OHSA investigator and did not report it until trial, other witnesses were neutral or lacked recollection, and there were insufficient indicators of trustworthiness; therefore the utterances are inadmissible hearsay under the principled approach.

Court Disposition

Crown application dismissed; utterances inadmissible hearsay

Orders

  • The evidence of the alleged utterances by Christopher Boyle is inadmissible and shall not be admitted for the truth of their contents.