Voir la source de Ouï-dire

[[en:Hearsay]]
{{Currency2|août|2021}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderHearsay}}
== Introduction ==
Hearsay evidence is any statement, either written or oral, which was made out of court, but is presented in court to prove the truth of that statement.<ref>
{{UKCase|Subramanian v Public Prosecutor| [1956] 1 W.L.R. 965 (P.C.)}} at 970 and adopted in Canada first in {{CanLIIRP|Abbey|1lpcf|1982 CanLII 25 (CSC)|[1982] 2 RCS 24}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Evans|1frzr|1993 CanLII 86 (CSC)|[1993] 3 RCS 653}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1frzr|16}} ( {{Tr}}« An out-of-court statement which is for the truth of its contents is hearsay. » )</ref> 
It is a type of evidence that is generally considered inadmissible.<ref>
{{UKCase|R v Christie|, [1914] A.C. 545}}{{Atp|548}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bradshaw|h4jxv|2017 CSC 35 (CanLII)|[2017] 1 RCS 865}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}} ( {{Tr}}« Hearsay is an out-of-court statement tendered for the truth of its contents.  » ) and 21<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Khelawon|1q51q|2006 CSC 57 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 RCS 787}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atsL|1q51q|2| and 3}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|O'Brien|1z73m|1977 CanLII 168 (CSC)|[1978] 1 RCS 591}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Starr|525m|2000 CSC 40 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 RCS 144}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{AtL|525m|162}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Durocher|j2ll1|2019 SKCA 97 (CanLII)|380 CCC (3d) 511}}{{perSKCA|Schwann JA}}{{atL|j2ll1|56| to 57}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bear|j8nd3|2020 SKCA 86 (CanLII)|389 CCC (3d) 437}}{{perSKCA|Schwann JA}}{{atL|j8nd3|51}}<Br>
</ref>

The hearsay rule has been stated as:<ref>
Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada, Butterworths, 2d ed. ss.6.2</ref>
{{quotation1|Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein.|{{NA}}}}

The definition has been addressed in several cases.<ref>
{{supra1|Evans}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1fs9x|1992 CanLII 79 (CSC)|[1992] 2 RCS 915}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Hawkins|1fr52|1996 CanLII 154 (CSC)|[1996] 3 RCS 1043}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ and Iacobucci J}}, at 153</ref>

Any out-of-court statement that is adduced simply to prove the statement was made is not hearsay. The statement is admissible as long as it is relevant.<ref>
{{supra1|Evans}}{{atp|102-103}}<br>
</ref>

Allowing in hearsay can compromise trial fairness and the truth-seeking process.<ref>
{{supra1|Bradshaw}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dupe|gt7c5|2016 ONCA 653 (CanLII)|340 CCC (3d) 508}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|gt7c5|44}} (this type of evidence is "excluded both to protect the integrity of the truth-seeking function of the trial and to preserve the fairness of the trial » )
</ref>

When hearsay is elicited on cross-examination it will still be inadmissible.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Laverty (No. 2)|htz5q|1979 CanLII 3010 (ON CA)|47 CCC (2d) 60}}{{perONCA-H|Zuber JA}}
</reF>

{{reflist|2}}

==Reasons for Exclusion==
Hearsay statements are difficult to assess for trustworthiness.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bradshaw|h4jxv|2017 CSC 35 (CanLII)|[2017] 1 RCS 865}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}<br>
</ref>

Courts generally do not allow such evidence as it is generally said to be untrustworthy for several reasons:<ref>Sopkina, at 175<br>
</ref>
#The admission of such evidence lends itself to the perpetration of fraud. This is in part due to the lack of oath on the part of the source.<ref>
{{supra1|Bradshaw}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}</ref>
#Hearsay evidence results in a decision based upon secondary and, therefore, weaker evidence rather than the best evidence available. Related to this, there is no opportunity to cross-examine or otherwise test the evidence of the source.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Abel|fq2cl|2011 NLTD 173 (CanLII)|989 APR 113}}{{perNLSC|Stack J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Khelawon|1q51q|2006 CSC 57 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 RCS 787}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|1q51q|38}} - no way to examine reliability by cross-examination<br>
</ref>
#There is no opportunity to observe the demeanour of the declarant, thus making it harder to assess the quality of the evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|Bradshaw}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}<br>
</ref>
#The introduction of such evidence will lengthen trials.

These concerns include the inability to investigate the "declarant’s perception, memory, narration, or sincerity."<ref>
{{supra1|Bradshaw}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}<br>
{{supra1|Khelawon}}{{atL|1q51q|2}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Baldree|h4jxv|2013 CSC 35 (CanLII)|[2017] 1 RCS 865}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{AtL|fqcws|32}}<br>
</ref>

These are known as the hearsay dangers.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|KGB|1fs51|1993 CanLII 116 (CSC)|[1993] 1 RCS 740}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atps|271-72}} (CCC)
</ref>

Additional concerns were also identified:<ref>
{{supra1|Baldree}}{{AtL|fqcws|32}}<br>
</ref>
# "the declarant may have misperceived the facts to which the hearsay statement relates";
# "even if correctly perceived, the relevant facts may have been wrongly remembered; "
# "the declarant may have narrated the relevant facts in an unintentionally misleading manner; and"
# "the declarant may have knowingly made a false assertion.  The opportunity to fully probe these potential sources of error arises only if the declarant is present in court and subject to cross-examination."

Of these dangers, the lack of contemporaneous cross-examination is the most essential defining feature.<ref>
{{supra1|Khelawon}}{{atL|1q51q|38}}<br>
{{supra1|Bradshaw}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}<br>
{{supra1|KGB}}{{atp|764}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Al-Enzi|jd2mx|2021 ONCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Tulloch JA}}{{atL|jd2mx|118}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dupe|gt7c5|2016 ONCA 653 (CanLII)|340 CCC (3d) 508}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|gt7c5|44}} (“absent contemporaneous cross-examination of the declarant, the party against whom the evidence is offered cannot effectively test the reliability and veracity of the out-of-court statement » )
</ref>

Allowing hearsay evidence "compromise trial fairness and the trial’s truth-seeking process."<ref>
{{supra1|Bradshaw}}{{atL|h4jxv|20}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Elements of Hearsay==
Where hearsay potentially arises, there are four elements to consider for the rule to be engaged:<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Baldree|fqcws|2012 ONCA 138 (CanLII)|280 CCC (3d) 191}}{{perONCA| Feldman JA}} (1:1:1){{AtL|fqcws|46}}, appealed to SCC on other grounds<br>
{{CanLIIRP|MC|g8rmn|2014 ONCA 611 (CanLII)|314 CCC (3d) 336}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtL|g8rmn|51}}
</ref>
# a declarant (who does not testify)
# a recipient (who does testify)
# a statement (that is being tendered) and
# a purpose for introducing the statement (proof of the truth of its contents)

The first three are almost always made out, the fourth requirement is usually the source of controversy. Not every out-of-court statement is hearsay.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Khelawon|1q51q|2006 CSC 57 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 RCS 787}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|1q51q|56}}</ref>

The prohibited purpose consists of admission for the purpose of proving the “truth” of its contents. Otherwise, it is admissible evidence. That is, statements that used to show the recipient had notice, knowledge or motive or was in some way probative then it is otherwise admissible.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Evans|1frzr|1993 CanLII 86 (CSC)|[1993] 3 RCS 653}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1frzr|16}} ( {{Tr}}« An out-of-court statement offered simply as proof that the statement was made is not hearsay, and is admissible as long as it has some probative value » )</ref>

If it is for the “truth of its contents,” then it is presumptively inadmissible unless it fits in a traditional categorical exception or under the principled exception.<ref>
{{supra1|Khelawon}}{{atL|1q51q|42}}</ref>
The primary reason for this is that it is not possible to test the reliability of the statement such as by cross-examination.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sharif|25kbx|2009 BCCA 390 (CanLII)|275 BCAC 171}}{{perBCCA|Saunders JA}}{{atL|25kbx|12}}</ref>

Hearsay applies equally to out-of-court statements made by witnesses who ''do'' testify.<ref>
{{supra1|MC}}{{atL|g8rmn|52}}<Br>
{{supra1|Khelawon}}{{atL|1q51q|37}}<Br> 
{{CanLIIRP|KGB|1fs51|1993 CanLII 116 (CSC)|[1993] 1 RCS 740}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} aux pp. 763-764<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Starr|525m|2000 CSC 40 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 RCS 144}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|525m|158}}<Br>
</ref>
In such cases, the hearsay rule applies once the witness "does not repeat or adopt the information contained in the out-of-court statement."<ref>
{{supra1|MC}} ta para 52<Br>
Khelawon at para 38<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Types of Statements==
Traditionally, hearsay applies to oral statements and written statements.<Ref>
{{UKCase|R v Christie|, [1914] A.C. 545}}<br>
</ref>
While "statements" are usually in the form of spoken or written words, they will include conduct that communicates meaning, such as a head shake or nod.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nurse|hzhw9|2019 ONCA 260 (CanLII)|145 OR (3d) 241}}{{perONCA|Trotter JA}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Borel|jcjng|2021 ONCA 16 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Nordheimer JA}}{{atL|jcjng|42}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Badgerow|g6g42|2014 ONCA 272 (CanLII)|311 CCC (3d) 26}}{{perONCA|Strathy JA}}{{AtL|g6g42|106}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Khelawon|1q51q|2006 CSC 57 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 RCS 787}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|1q51q|34}} ( {{Tr}}« hearsay evidence includes communications expressed by conduct » )
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Implied Assertions===
An implied assertion (also called "implied hearsay » ) is an act or utterance that conveys some information to the recipient in an implied manner. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nurse|hzhw9|2019 ONCA 260 (CanLII)|145 OR (3d) 241}}{{perONCA|Trotter JA}}{{AtL|hzhw9|54}}
</ref>
Such conduct can include:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Badgerow|g6g42|2014 ONCA 272 (CanLII)|311 CCC (3d) 26}}{{perONCA|Strathy JA}}{{atL|g6g42|107}}
</ref>
* nodding the head 
* pointing to someone in accusation
* pointing at something 
* shrugging shoulders
* showing something to someone

The trier of fact must determine the meaning of the words that were intended to be conveyed.<Ref>
{{ibid1|Badgerow}}{{atL|g6g42|107}}
</ref>

Non-assertive conduct, however is conduct from which a statement can be inferred based on the declarant''s belief.<ref>
{{supra1|Nurse}}{{atL|hzhw9|54}}
</ref>

Courts do not make a principled distinction between implied assertions and explicit hearsay.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Baldree|fz7b7|2013 CSC 35 (CanLII)|[2013] 2 RCS 520}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
=== Computer Records ===
{{seealso|Documents et dossiers électroniques}}
The absence of data in a computer system is not generally hearsay. For example, inquiries into the police records regarding a suspect that result in a negative result was found not to be hearsay.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Saddleback|ftxnv|2012 ABQB 670 (CanLII)|548 AR 307}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atsL|ftxnv|45| à 54}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Phone Calls or Text Messages===

Discovered electronic communications are routinely admissible despite them consisting of hearsay.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cater|fqfh8|2012 NSPC 15 (CanLII)|998 APR 46}}{{perNSPC|Derrick J}}{{AtL|fqfh8|36}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Calnen|gm6th|2015 NSSC 319 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Chipman J}}{{atL|gm6th|27}}<br>
</ref>

This is in part because text messages are, "in essence," electronic conversations where the only practical difference is the "transmission process."<ref>
{{supra1|Cater}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|TELUS Communications Co|fwq21|2013 CSC 16 (CanLII)|[2013] 2 RCS 3}}{{perSCC-H|Abella J}}{{atL|fwq21|5}} ( {{Tr}}« Text messaging is, in essence, an electronic conversation.  The only practical difference between text messaging and the traditional voice communications is the transmission process.  ... » )
</ref>

The reliability of communications is generally high. They are often spontaneous and contemporaneous with the events they describe.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Burns|grsbv|2016 SKCA 67 (CanLII)}}{{perSKCA|Caldwell JA}} (3:0){{atL|grsbv|27}}<br>
{{supra1|Cater}}{{atsL|fqfh8|38| à 40}}
</ref>

The reliability of text messages will increase where there is a greater number of text messages on a single subject.<reF>
{{CanLIIRP|Gerrior|g87rc|2014 NSCA 76 (CanLII)|348 NSR (2d) 354}}{{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}} (3:0){{atsL|g87rc|43| à 48}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bridgman|hpdxb|2017 ONCA 940 (CanLII)|357 CCC (3d) 213}}{{perONCA|Fairburn JA}} (3:0){{atsL|hpdxb|55| à 57}}
</reF>
The lack of full context in longer conversations will generally go to weight.<reF>
{{CanLIIRx|JR|h6mjd|2015 ONCJ 837 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Paciocco J}}{{AtL|h6mjd|19}}<br>
</ref>
By contrast, reliability may be undermined where the message lacks sufficient context or where the meaning is otherwise unclear.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Foerster|h0b5z|2017 BCCA 105 (CanLII)|346 CCC (3d) 163}}{{perBCCA|Groberman JA}} (3:0){{atsL|h0b5z|72| à 74}}
</ref>
The lack of context must be considered when deciding what meaning to make from the conversation.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRx|Delorme|fz3fk|2013 SKQB 199 (CanLII)}}{{perSKQB|Keene J}}{{atL|fz3fk|69}} - three text messages n a phone without context<bR>
</ref>

; Drug Purchase Calls
Drug purchase phone calls, usually where the police are on the other end of a call, have a history of litigation to exclude them as hearsay. More often than not they have been admitted as either necessary and reliable or as non-hearsay.<ref>
As non-hearsay see {{CanLIIRP|Lucia|2br2d|2010 ONCA 533 (CanLII)|OJ No 3154}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|2br2d|7}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Edwards|6k30|1994 CanLII 1461 (ON CA)|91 CCC (3d) 123}}{{perONCA|McKinlay JA}}{{atps|248-249}} (voir également para 22) -admissible as non-hearsay<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nguyen|dtz|2003 BCCA 556 (CanLII)|180 CCC (3d) 347}}{{perBCCA|Mackenzie JA}}{{atL|dtz|17}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Ly|1fqxc|1997 CanLII 330 (CSC)|[1997] 3 RCS 698}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atsL|1fqxc|1| à 4}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cook|23gjx|1978 CanLII 399|46 CCC (2d) 318}}{{perBCCA|McIntyre JA}}{{atp|320}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Duncan|1f81b|2001 CanLII 11779 (MB PC)|11 WWR 134}}{{perMBPC|Joyal J}} - phone-call inadmissible<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Bjornson|27522|2009 BCSC 1779 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Bennett J}} - admissible <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Guan|2blxm|2010 YKSC 14 (CanLII)|YJ No 72}}{{perYKSC|Veale J}} - admissible b/c not hearsay<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Mironuk-Hurak|ftr6l|2012 MBQB 290 (CanLII)}}{{perMBQB|Oliphant J}} - admissible b/c not hearsay<br>
</ref>

===Other Examples===
The possession of ID with a person's name is not necessarily hearsay as the probability of possessing a document of that description is probative to ID.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Johnstone|j45p5|2019 ABQB 965 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|j45p5|71}}
</ref>

; Guilty Pleas of Co-Accused
The guilty plea of a co-accused is a form of hearsay.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Rajmoolie|jcc08|2020 ONCA 791 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Lauwers JA}} (dissent)
</ref>
This form of hearsay is "rarely" admissible.<Ref>
{{ibid1|Rajmoolie}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Purpose of Introducing the Statement==
The admissibility of a purported hearsay statement will vary depending on the intended purpose or use of the statement.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Baltzer|htz3m|1974 CanLII 1668 (NS CA)|27 CCC (2d) 118}}{{perNSCA-H|Macdonald JA}}
</ref>
It is not "an inherent characteristic" to the evidence.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MC|g8rmn|2014 ONCA 611 (CanLII)|314 CCC (3d) 336}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtL|g8rmn|50}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Baldree|fz7b7|2013 CSC 35 (CanLII)|[2013] 2 RCS 520}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{AtsL|fz7b7|30| and 36}}
</ref> 

{{reflist|2}}
===As "Original" Evidence===
A statement is said to be tendered as "original" evidence where it is tendered for a purpose other than for the truth of it's contents.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|jd1hr|84}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Pisani|g1g3t|1971 CanLII 434 (ON CA)|5 CCC (2d) 133}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ferber|2dkr1|1987 ABCA 86 (CanLII)|36 CCC (3d) 157}}{{perABCA-H|McClung JA}}<br>
{{UKCase|R v Ratten|, [1972] AC 378}}<Br>
{{UKCase|Milne and Seville v. Leisler| (1862), 7 H. & N. 786}}
</ref>

Typical non-hearsay uses of out-of-court statements include:
* officers testifying to their [[Reasonable and Probable Grounds|reasonable and probable grounds]] to perform some duty
* the fact that the statement was made
* proof of knowledge of accused<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Turlon|gbj2b|1989 CanLII 7206 (ON CA)|49 CCC (3d) 186}}{{perONCA|Zuber AJ}}
</ref>
* complicity or conspiracy<Ref>
{{supra1|Turlon}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bloomfield, Cormier and Ettinger|htxw2|1973 CanLII 1473 (NB CA)|10 CCC (2d) 398}}{{perNBCA|Limerick JA}}
</ref>
* authorship<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Armstrong|htz95|1970 CanLII 1087 (NS CA)|1 CCC (2d) 106}}{{perNSCA|McKinnon CJ}}
</ref>
* narrative 
* investigative narrative to counterclaim that the investigation was inadequate.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dhillon|1cqpr|2002 CanLII 41540 (ON CA)|166 CCC (3d) 262}}{{perONCA|Laskin and Goudge JJA}}
</ref>

Where evidence of an out-of-court statement is being used for a non-hearsay purpose (not for the truth of its contents), it will still be limited by relevance, probative value, and may be subject to a limiting instruction to a jury.

{{reflist|2}}

===Corroborating Statements of Co-Accused===
The out-of-court statements of a co-accused will be hearsay and cannot be admitted for the purpose of corroborating a witness.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Denholme|2d3qn|2010 BCSC 1513 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC| Voith J}}
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

===Exculpatory Statements===
Hearsay statements of the accused that are exculpatory are still presumptively inadmissible under the general rule of hearsay.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Simpson|gkdsj|2015 CSC 40 (CanLII)|[2015] 2 RCS 827}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atL|gkdsj|41}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Rojas|218cx|2008 CSC 56 (CanLII)|[2008] 3 RCS 111}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atsL|218cx|36| à 37}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Conspiracy===
{{seealso|Exceptions traditionnelles au ouï-dire}}
A communication by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a common unlawful design that makes out the conspiracy can be admissible to prove the existence of a prior agreement.
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wang|fzgmk|2013 BCCA 311 (CanLII)|299 CCC (3d) 431}}{{perBCCA|Bennett JA}}{{atL|fzgmk|49}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

=== Opinion Evidence===
Non-specific hearsay opinion evidence is inadmissible.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Ranger|5xwr|2003 CanLII 32900 (ON CA)|67 OR (3d) 1, 14 CR (6th) 324 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}{{atL|5xwr|65}}</ref>
{{reflist|2}}

===Others===
Voir également [[Déclarations antérieures cohérentes]] - a form of hearsay

; State of Mind
An out-of-court statement can be admitted as proof of the speaker's state of mind.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Simpson|1ftjr|1988 CanLII 89 (CSC)|[1988] 1 RCS 3}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}, at 22
</ref>

; Medical Diagnosis
It is generally not acceptable hearsay to establish a medical diagnosis only by the oral evidence of the patient.<Ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRx|Turmel|5lm0|2001 BCPC 430 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Alexander J}}{{atL|5lm0|13}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Krause v Krause|2bj0d|1974 CanLII 313 (AB QB)|4 WWR 738}}{{perABQB|DC Mcdonald J}}{{atL|2bj0d|6}}
</ref>
A medical diagnosis or opinion may be admissible for the fact that it was said and not for the truth of its contents.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRxC|Balogun v Pandher|hzzhb|2019 ABQB 291 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Gill J}}{{AtL|hzzhb|18}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

== Topics ==
* [[Exceptions traditionnelles au ouï-dire]] (including Statutory Exceptions)
* [[Exception de principe au ouï-dire]]

==Case Digests==
*[[Hearsay (Cases)|Hearsay Case Digests]]