|
Evidence - Criminal Records (2). R. v. Hussein
In R. v. Hussein (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a further appeal (the CA also dismissed), this after the "trial judge dismissed Mr. Hussein’s Corbett application after concluding that the probative value of the criminal record outweighed its prejudicial effect".
The court summarizes the case respecting the admissibility of criminal records [under CEA s.12(1)] and the Corbett application exception, here in the larger context of character/tendency evidence:[1] The common law has long recognized that a criminal trial is not a forum to pass judgment on the general character of the accused. It upholds this principle by treating Crown-led evidence of an accused’s bad character as presumptively inadmissible and by prohibiting the trier of fact from inferring guilt simply because the accused appears to be the “type” of person to commit the crime. These constraints are not merely evidentiary rules but constitutional imperatives, for they preserve the integrity of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[2] The provision at issue in this appeal, s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 (“CEA”), sits in tension with the foregoing, as it presumptively allows the Crown to adduce evidence of the accused’s prior convictions in order to impeach their credibility. In doing so, the provision departs from the common law’s carefully calibrated rules governing character evidence. There is no requirement that the accused put their character in issue before the Crown can have their criminal record admitted into evidence. Nor does the provision explicitly address the significant risk that, even though prior convictions are technically admissible only for the purpose of assessing the accused’s credibility, the trier of fact may nonetheless rely on the evidence to infer guilt using prohibited general propensity reasoning.
[3] Recognizing the dangerous potential of this provision, this Court, in R. v. Corbett, 1988 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, determined that s. 12(1) of the CEA is consistent with s. 11(d) of the Charter on the basis that trial judges retain their common law discretion to exclude evidence when the prejudice it would cause to trial fairness outweighs its probative value. To structure the exercise of discretion in this context, this Court developed a framework outlining four factors that trial judges should consider when weighing the probative value and prejudicial effect of an accused’s prior convictions: (1) the nature of the prior convictions; (2) the recency or remoteness of the prior convictions; (3) the similarity between the prior convictions and the charge faced by the accused; and (4) the risk of presenting a distorted picture to the trier of fact (Corbett, at pp. 740-44, per La Forest J., dissenting).
[4] This appeal marks the first time that this Court has been asked to revisit the Corbett framework. The appellant, Awale Hussein, asserts that courts have interpreted and applied Corbett inconsistently and therefore asks this Court to adjust the rules governing the admission of an accused’s criminal record under s. 12(1) of the CEA, including by establishing that this evidence is subject to a presumption of inadmissibility and by confining its relevance to the issue of the accused’s honesty. This Court is also called upon to clarify the principles governing the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion to refuse cross-examination — specifically by identifying which convictions are probative of credibility, recognizing the role of social context as a factor, and delineating exactly when the distortion factor becomes relevant during a Corbett analysis.
[5] In my view, the Corbett framework has stood the test of time but warrants clarification and modification to ensure that it is applied in a predictable and principled manner. While I decline to read a presumption of inadmissibility into s. 12(1) of the CEA, this appeal provides this Court with an appropriate opportunity to specify with greater precision how the Corbett framework should be applied by trial judges.
....
(4) Summary of Principles
[117] The principles governing the exercise of a trial judge’s discretion to refuse the Crown’s cross-examination of the accused on their prior convictions pursuant to s. 12(1) of the CEA can be summarized in the following manner.
[118] When the accused brings a Corbett application to have part of their criminal record excluded, they must persuade the trial judge on a balance of probabilities that the prejudice it would cause to trial fairness outweighs its probative value on the issue of credibility. The admission into evidence of an accused’s prior conviction generally carries a significant risk of moral prejudice. Accordingly, to discharge their persuasive burden, the accused must demonstrate that a prior conviction lacks sufficient probative value to outweigh the significant prejudice typically inherent in this evidence.
[119] Sufficient probative value will exist only when the prior conviction permits the trier of fact to infer that the accused has a specific capacity or willingness to be dishonest at the time of the trial. This will largely depend on the nature of the offence. Traditional crimes of dishonesty and some administration of justice offences are often capable of supporting this credibility inference. By contrast, many crimes of violence are not. If a conviction cannot support the requisite credibility inference, or if it is unclear whether the conviction can do so, its probative value will generally be incapable of overcoming its prejudicial effect, and exclusion will be warranted.
[120] Other factors are relevant to an assessment of probative value. A remote prior conviction will be less probative of the accused’s capacity for dishonesty at the time of the trial compared to a recent conviction. Additionally, when a prior conviction stems in part from circumstances of disadvantage, its probative value on the issue of credibility will be diminished. Youth offences will generally have low probative value with respect to an adult accused’s credibility.
[121] The probative value of prior convictions can also increase when there is a risk of the trier of fact being misled about the facts it is asked to judge. The risk of distortion appears when, for reasons unrelated to the facts of the case, the defence asks the trier of fact to draw an adverse credibility inference against an important Crown witness based on their alleged bad character. In these circumstances, the defence is suggesting that, because of their bad character, the Crown witness is the “type” of person to lie and is therefore likely to do so on the witness stand. Trial judges should give this factor a weight that is proportionate to the risk of distortion, recognizing that the theory underlying this factor’s inclusion in the Corbett framework is distinct from that underlying the other Corbett factors.
[122] The prejudice caused by a prior conviction can also be impacted by various factors. For example, if a high degree of similarity exists between a prior conviction and the offence charged, there will, generally speaking, be a profound risk of moral prejudice and the prior conviction will be admitted into evidence only exceptionally. Certain types of serious crimes, including some violent offences, can also elevate the risk of prohibited propensity reasoning. Moreover, the prejudice caused by a prior conviction can be elevated when the accused is a member of a disadvantaged group that is subject to discriminatory biases and stereotyping. The strength of the Crown’s case does not mitigate the prejudice associated with the admission of a prior conviction.
[123] Finally, it bears repeating that, while these principles provide structure for an exercise of discretion that safeguards trial fairness for the accused, some flexibility in their application is inevitable. This is a contextual inquiry. Trial judges, as evidentiary gatekeepers, are best positioned to assess probative value and prejudicial effect in light of the specific circumstances of the case. When these guiding principles are respected by trial judges, deference is owed on appeal. . R. v. Hussein [leading case]
In R. v. Hussein (SCC, 2026) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a further appeal (the CA also dismissed), this after the "trial judge dismissed Mr. Hussein’s Corbett application after concluding that the probative value of the criminal record outweighed its prejudicial effect".
Here the court considers CEA s.12(1) ['Examination as to previous convictions'] (cross-examination as to past criminal convictions):(2) Section 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act
[42] Section 12(1) of the CEA allows the questioning of any witness, including the accused, about whether they have been convicted of any offence. The sole purpose of this cross-examination is to impeach the credibility of the witness. This statutory provision therefore permits the Crown to cross-examine the accused on their prior convictions to establish a secondary inference, regardless of whether the accused has put their character in issue (Lederman, Fuerst and Stewart, at ¶10.86). Section 12(1) of the CEA provides as follows:12 (1) A witness may be questioned as to whether the witness has been convicted of any offence, excluding any offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, but including such an offence where the conviction was entered after a trial on an indictment.
(1.1) If the witness either denies the fact or refuses to answer, the opposite party may prove the conviction. [43] The Crown’s cross-examination in these circumstances “is not directly aimed at establishing the falsity of the witness’s evidence; it is rather designed to lay down a factual basis — prior convictions — from which the inference may subsequently be drawn that the witness’ credibility is suspect and that his evidence ought not to be believed” (Morris, at p. 432). The provision reflects a “legislative judgment that prior convictions do bear upon the credibility of a witness” (Corbett, at p. 685).
[44] In Corbett, this Court held that s. 12(1) of the CEA does not violate an accused’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter. Mr. Corbett had argued that, while s. 12(1) purports to make prior convictions admissible solely to impugn credibility, the accused is unfairly prejudiced because the trier of fact will inevitably engage in impermissible propensity reasoning and use the convictions to decide guilt or innocence (p. 688). This is so, he contended, even in circumstances where the jury is given a limiting instruction on the proper use of the prior convictions and is cautioned against propensity reasoning (p. 689). The Court rejected this constitutional argument after recognizing that s. 12(1) of the CEA does not displace a trial judge’s common law discretion to exclude evidence when the prejudice it would cause to trial fairness outweighs its probative value (p. 697; see also p. 699, per Beetz J., and pp. 747-48, per La Forest J., dissenting).
[45] In recognizing that s. 12(1) of the CEA preserves a trial judge’s discretion to exclude relevant evidence that would result in an unfair trial, a majority of this Court adopted La Forest J.’s articulation, in his dissenting reasons, of the factors that should guide a trial judge’s exercise of discretion in this context (Corbett, at p. 698). La Forest J. stated that “[i]t is impossible to provide an exhaustive catalogue of the factors that are relevant in assessing the probative value or potential prejudice of such evidence” (p. 740), but he identified the following as among the most important factors: (1) the nature of the prior convictions; (2) the recency or remoteness of the prior convictions; and (3) the similarity between the prior convictions and the charge faced by the accused (pp. 740-42). On the first factor, La Forest J. cited Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1967), for the premise that crimes of dishonesty are more probative of credibility than crimes of violence, which generally have little direct bearing on an accused’s honesty (pp. 740-41). On the second factor, La Forest J. stated that the remoteness of a prior conviction typically diminishes its probative value (p. 742). On the third factor, he held that convictions for offences that are more similar to the offence for which the accused is being tried cause greater prejudice and that courts should therefore be “very chary” of admitting such evidence, noting the stringent requirements for rebutting the presumption of inadmissibility governing bad character evidence (pp. 741-42).
[46] La Forest J. also recognized that the risk of presenting a distorted picture to the trier of fact may be a relevant factor in some cases, noting that the factor comes into play especially in cases where the accused makes a “deliberate attack . . . upon the credibility of a Crown witness and where the resolution of the case boils down to a credibility contest between the accused and that witness” (p. 742). Ultimately, however, he cautioned that the distortion factor cannot “override the concern for a fair trial” (pp. 743-44).
[47] Both the majority and the dissent in Corbett emphasized the contextual and discretionary nature of judicial determinations of probative value and prejudicial effect. La Forest J. stated that “prejudicial potential and probative value are not abstract qualities. They exist in the context of a concrete case and are determined with reference to the circumstances of the case” (p. 744). Dickson C.J. similarly underscored “the discretion in the trial judge to exclude evidence of prior convictions in those unusual circumstances where a mechanical application of s. 12 would undermine the right to a fair trial” (p. 692).
[48] This Court split on the application of the relevant factors to Mr. Corbett’s case. Mr. Corbett was on trial for a murder committed in 1982. During the trial, his youth criminal record from 1954 was admitted into evidence. The crimes in that record included armed robbery, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering (two counts), theft (five counts), and escaping custody. His criminal conviction for non-capital murder in 1971 was also admitted into evidence (p. 681). Dickson C.J. held that the entire criminal record had been properly admitted, since excluding Mr. Corbett’s murder conviction would have left the jury “with the entirely mistaken impression that while the Crown witnesses were hardened criminals, Corbett had an unblemished record” (p. 698). La Forest J. disagreed, holding that the murder conviction should have been excluded. In his view, the probative value of this type of offence was “trifling”, and the similarity between the offences created a “manifestly profound” potential for prejudice (p. 746). While he accepted that Mr. Corbett had “assailed the credibility of Crown witnesses” and that credibility was a “vital issue” at trial, he was satisfied that the risk of distortion could have been remedied without reference to the murder conviction (p. 747). Specifically, he noted that the jury would have already known of Mr. Corbett’s “unsavoury criminal character” from the other facts of the case and his other previous convictions (ibid.).
[49] In Corbett, this Court also identified various limitations placed on the Crown’s ability to cross-examine the accused on their prior convictions: (1) the accused can be examined only as to the fact of the conviction and not as to the conduct that led to the conviction; (2) the accused cannot be cross-examined as to whether they testified during previous trials; (3) the accused cannot be cross-examined on discreditable conduct beyond prior convictions; (4) the Crown can adduce evidence of prior convictions only if the accused takes the stand, even in circumstances where the defence has attacked the character of Crown witnesses; and (5) the accused can be cross-examined only on convictions, strictly construed, and not on findings of guilt for which the accused was discharged (p. 696). These limits on cross-examination are in addition to the requirement that the trial judge give a limiting instruction on general propensity reasoning by warning the jury that, while prior convictions are probative of credibility, they cannot be used to infer guilt (pp. 688-89; see also Lederman, Fuerst and Stewart, at ¶10.82).
[50] In R. v. Underwood, 1998 CanLII 839 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 77, this Court held that an accused is entitled to a ruling on their Corbett application at the close of the Crown’s case, before they decide whether to testify (para. 7). The extent to which an accused’s criminal record is admissible encompasses part of the case to be met by the accused. Knowledge of the case to be met is a principle of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 of the Charter (para. 6).
....
[124] The standard of appellate review for rulings on Corbett applications is consistent with the standard applicable to all forms of discretionary decision-making. Deference is warranted unless there is an error in principle, a material misapprehension of the evidence, or an unreasonable exercise of discretion (see R. v. J.W., 2025 SCC 16, at para. 50, citing Canada (Transportation Safety Board) v. Carroll-Byrne, 2022 SCC 48, [2022] 3 S.C.R. 515, at para. 41; see also Charland (SCC), at paras. 1-2). An appellate court should not “simply substitute its own view of how [the] discretion ought to have been exercised” in the absence of a clear error (Corbett, at p 746). . R. v. Marshall
In R. v. Marshall (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a defendant's appeal, this after he "was convicted of one count of second-degree murder after a trial by jury".
The court considered a Corbett-CEA s.12 application, here in an indigenous defendant context:b. The Legal Principles to Be Applied on a Corbett Application Brought by an Indigenous Offender
[46] Evidence of “bad character” unrelated to the charge for which the accused is on trial is generally inadmissible at trial: Corbett, [at p. 725, per La Forest J. (dissenting, but not on this point); R. v. D.S., 2024 ONCA 831, at para. 24.
[47] However, s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5, creates a legislative exception to this rule by permitting a witness, including an accused person who chooses to testify, to be cross-examined on their criminal record. Accordingly, “cross-examination on the accused’s criminal record will be the usual course”: R. v. R.D., 2019 ONCA 951, 382 C.C.C. (3d) 304, at para. 13, citing R. v. P. (N.A.) (2002), 2002 CanLII 22359 (ON CA), 167 O.A.C. 176 (C.A.), at para. 20.
[48] The presumptive admissibility of prior convictions rests on the theory that they are relevant to credibility. Prior convictions are used, along with other evidence, to assess a witness’ credibility as “[t]here can surely be little argument that a prior criminal record is a fact which, to some extent at least, bears upon the credibility of a witness … a fact which a jury might take into account in assessing credibility”: Corbett, at p. 685.
[49] An accused person with a criminal record who testifies is not, however, like any other witness. In King, at para. 141, this court explained that:[T]he concern is that when their criminal record follows them to the witness stand there is a risk that the convictions will be used not only to assess credibility but also for an improper line of reasoning: that the accused’s prior offending conduct means that they are the type of person to have committed the offence with which they are now charged. [50] An accused is therefore entitled to bring a Corbett application to seek to edit or exclude entirely, their criminal record.
[51] The starting point on a Corbett application is that juries should receive all relevant information accompanied, when necessary, by a clear limiting instruction regarding the use that can be made of the tendered record: Corbett, at p. 691. However, if the trial judge is satisfied that the prejudicial effect of a conviction will outweigh its probative value, the trial judge may exercise discretion to exclude that conviction and the Crown will only be entitled to cross-examine the defendant on the admissible convictions: Corbett, at p. 692; P. (N.A.), at para. 17.
[52] In this context, the probative value of a conviction is informed by “the connection between the fact of the prior conviction and the credibility … of the accused”, while the prejudicial effect arises out of the potential for propensity reasoning that jurors may engage in, once they are made aware of that conviction: King, at para. 176.
[53] Whether and to what extent a trial judge may edit a record depends on case-specific circumstances including: (i) the nature of the previous convictions; (ii) the similarity of the previous convictions to the matter under prosecution; (iii) the remoteness of the previous convictions; and (iv) the need to prevent an unbalanced picture being presented to the jury: Corbett, at pp. 698 and 740-44. The nature of a previous conviction directly affects the extent to which it bears upon credibility: Corbett, at pp. 685-86.
[54] Most notably, convictions for crimes of dishonesty provide circumstantial evidence that the accused has a dishonest character and may demonstrate contempt for laws: King, at para. 140. Convictions for other types of crimes, however, may also bear upon credibility because they may demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness as evinced by an enduring disrespect for the law: King, at para. 140; Corbett, at p. 686, citing State v. Duke (1956), 123 A.2d 745 (S.C.N.H.), at p. 746.
[55] This court confirmed that Gladue principles apply in the context of a Corbett application brought by an Indigenous accused to guide a trial judge’s determination of “whether it would prejudice an accused’s right to a fair trial to admit into evidence some or all of the accused’s criminal record”: King at para. 171. Where there are unique systemic or background factors that may have played a part in bringing the Indigenous offender before the courts, judges must take those factors into consideration. They may also consider broader systemic factors affecting Indigenous people more generally: see Gladue, at paras. 66 and 83-84; R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 59.
[56] Such factors, where applicable, are to be considered when determining the degree to which a prior conviction of an Indigenous accused will assist in advancing the credibility inquiry, or the probative strength of the conviction-to-credibility inference. They are intended to supplement, not to replace the “long-applied guiding criteria set out in Corbett”: King, at para. 192.
[57] When weighing the probative value of a given conviction, judges should consider whether the accused has proffered evidence to “demonstrate that the systemic and background factors affecting Indigenous people in Canada is tied in some way to the particular accused and the conviction.” This is a contextual inquiry to “[allow] the trial judge to determine whether the accused’s criminal record makes it more likely that the accused is not the type of person to tell the truth or respect the authority of the law, or whether the impact of the experience of racism on this particular accused’s life renders the credibility inference so tenuous that admission of the conviction is gutted of its probative value”: King, at paras. 179-92.
[58] When assessing prejudicial effect, trial judges must “consider whether in the context before them, the accused is at elevated risk of prejudice because of racist stereotypes” that relate to credibility, worthiness and criminal propensity, which “cause analytical problems in applying the law and may prevent triers of fact from assessing the credibility of Indigenous people fairly and accurately”: King, at paras. 194, 196.
[59] There need not be evidence of a direct causal link between a conviction and the systemic racism experienced by Indigenous people, but “there must be some evidence to support the circumstances that have impacted the accused’s life”. The focus must remain on preserving the fair trial right by placing evidence before the trier of fact that will assist their credibility assessment, without risking improper propensity reasoning. As such, “[w]hat the accused must do within the Corbett voir dire is … demonstrate that the systemic and background factors affecting Indigenous people in Canada is tied in some way to the particular accused and the conviction”: King, at paras. 182-84.
[60] Applying the Gladue principles on a Corbett application does not necessarily direct a different result, nor is it intended to redress broad social problems or remedy past disadvantage. Instead, “it is intended to advance trial fairness by permitting trial judges to take all relevant factors into account – factors that might otherwise be overlooked – when exercising their discretion to exclude evidence that is more prejudicial than probative”: King, at para. 175.
[61] King thus reaffirms the Corbett framework, while recognizing that Gladue principles inform the analysis. It represents an elaboration, not an abandonment, of the Corbett framework. King directs trial judges to continue to apply the familiar and established principles set out in Corbett, but in a way that is sensitive to the systemic and background factors that may have affected a particular Indigenous accused’s path to the court.
[62] On an appeal from a Corbett application, deference is owed to the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in editing the criminal record, unless the trial judge made an error in principle, misapprehended the evidence, or exercised his discretion unreasonably: R.D., at para. 13; P. (N.A.), at para. 17; and R. v. Mayers, 2014 ONCA 474, at para. 3. . R. v. Mohammad-Daud
In R. v. Mohammad-Daud (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the admission of prior convictions in a criminal trial [CCC s.666 - 'Evidence of character']:[8] Evidence of prior convictions is admissible under s. 666 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C, 1985, c. C-46, where the accused has put his character in issue. The trial judge found that the appellant put his character in issue by seeking in his testimony “to foster the impression that he is a bad driver who is accident prone, but that he does not have the moral disposition to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle.” . R. v. Bush
In R. v. Bush (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal against an attempted murder conviction. In these extracts the court upholds the trial judge in dismissing the defendant's 'Corbett application' [admissibility of criminal record], which was commenced immediately after the Crown's case closed:[13] The trial judge dismissed the Corbett application. In doing so, he concluded, at para. 20: “The probative value of the Applicant's record outweighs any prejudice [to] the Applicant and that prejudice can be addressed through a properly worded instruction.”
|
