Flag of Canada
Government of Canada - Gouvernement du Canada Government of Canada
 
Français Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
Commissioners Board of Referees HRSDC Site
Jurisprudence Library Office of the Umpire Home
    Home > Board of Referees > Tribunal Proceedings > Evidence
     

  Introduction to
  Administrative
  Justice


  Foreword -
  Tribunal
  Proceedings


  Table of
  Contents


  Chapter 1
  Administrative
  Justice and
  Tribunal
  Proceedings


  Chapter 2
  The Hearing


  Chapter 3
  Evidence


  Chapter 4
  Interpreting
   the Act
  and the
  Regulations


  Chapter 5
  Deliberations
  and Decision


  Conclusion

  Appendix

  Index

  End notes

  Synoptic
  Tables


  Canadian
  Human Rights
  Tribunal


  Tribunal Proceeding

CHAPTER 3

EVIDENCE

 

3.5 Relevance of Evidence

Even if otherwise admissible, evidence must be relevant to be admitted in administrative proceedings. Evidence is relevant if it pertains, directly or indirectly, to a fact or issue to be determined and it moves the inquiry forward. The evidence must tend to make more or less probable the existence or non-existence of a fact or situation that must be proved.489

Relevance is a matter for the tribunal to decide. The tribunal must consider the extent of its jurisdiction, the object of the proceedings and the powers of redress or reparation granted by the law. The Civil Code of Quebec is more concise: "All evidence of any fact relevant to a dispute is admissible and may be presented by any means" (art. 2857 C.C.Q.). Refusal to admit relevant evidence is a violation of the principles of natural justice.490

There is no precise definition of relevance. This has occasionally caused relevance to be confused with weight. Facts that are not relevant have no real connection with the issues and tend to give rise to confusion, or to prolong the debate unduly or prejudice the opposing party. This is what some call logical relevance, whereas insufficient probative value is called legal relevance. We believe it is best to limit the use of the term "relevance" to situations in which the tribunal is excluding evidence because it is unrelated to the issues to be determined.491 But even the Supreme Court has assimilated the two concepts: according to Sopinka J., "all relevant evidence" means "all facts which are logically probative of the issue."492

Similar fact evidence, which may be indirect evidence of the condition of a thing or situation, raises the issue of relevance. Character or reputation evidence, adduced to impeach the credibility of a witness, is another example of evidence that does so. Evidence of a witness' bad reputation is admissible if it goes to credibility, even if it is unrelated to the issues to be determined. The cases have tended to admit similar acts as evidence of a person's intent or objective when those matters are in issue.493

Proof of acts subsequent to the event in issue also raise relevance questions. A tribunal may consider such proof to be relevant circumstantial evidence, or even the basis of a presumption as to a fact in issue.

 

[  previous  |  table of contents  |  next  ]

     
    Printer version
   
Last modified :  2006-08-31 top Important Notices