(Section 1133.)

FORM 75.

Justices' Return.

RETURN of convictions made by me (or us, as the case may be), during the quarter ending

19

J. S. and O. K., Convicting Justices (as the case may be).

55-56 V, c. 29, sch. 1, form SSS.

APPENDIX

Sections 1-37, inclusive, of the Canada Evidence Act, including Part I of that Act, made applicable to criminal proceedings.

(R.S.C. 1906, chap. 145, and amendments).

(An Act respecting Witnesses and Evidence.)

SHORT TITLE.

Short Title.-Citation.

1. This Act may be cited as the Canada Evidence Act.

PART I.

APPLICATION.

Application to criminal proceedings.

2. This Part shall apply to all criminal proceedings, and to all civil proceedings and other matters whatsoever respecting which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction in this behalf.

WITNESSES.

No incompetency from interest or crime.

3. A person shall not be incompetent to give evidence by reason of interest or crime.

Accused and wife or husband competent witnesses for defence.Wife or husband competent and compellable witnesses for prosecution. Disclosure of communications during marriage not compellable. Common law. Failure of accused or consort to testify.-Comment prohibited.

4. Every person charged with an offence, and, except in this section otherwise provided, the wife or husband, as the case

may be, of the person so charged, shall be a competent witness for the defence, whether the person so charged is charged solely or jointly with any other person.

2. The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence against any of the sections 202 to 206, inclusive, 211 to 219, inclusive, 238, 239, 242A, 244, 245, 298 to 302, inclusive, 307 to 311, inclusive, 313 to 316, inclusive, of the Criminal Code, shall be a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution without the consent of the person charged.

3. No husband shall be compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during their marriage, and no wife shall be compellable to disclose any communication made to her by her husband during their marriage.

4. Nothing in this section shall affect a case where the wife or husband of a person charged with an offence may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of that person.

5. The failure of the person charged, or of the wife or husband of such person, to testify, shall not be made the subject of comment by the judge, or by counsel for the prosecution.

Competency of accused as a witness; right to full answer and defence] See notes to Code secs. 259, 942; R. v. D'Aoust, 3 O.L.R. 653, 5 Can. Cr. Cas. 407; 1 O.W.R. 344.

Where wife or husband a compellable witness against consort]-See notes to the various Code sections referred to in sub-sec. (2); R. v. Allen, 22 Can. Cr. Cas. 124, 41 N.B.R. 516; R. v. Bissell, 1 Ont. R. 514; Mulligan v. Thompson, 23 Ont. R. 54; Leach v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1912) 7 Cr. App. R. 157.

Where persons tried on a joint indictment]-See note to Code sec. 856; R. v. Connors, 3 Que. K.B. 100; R. v. Hadwen [1902] 1 K.B. 882.

Comment on failure to testify]-See note to sec. 263; R. v. Coleman, 30 Ont. R. 108; R. v. Blais, 11 O.L.R. 345; R. v. Beaulieu (1915) 24 Can. Cr. Cas. 65 (N.B.); R. v. Charles King, 1 W.L.R. 235, 9 Can. Cr. Cas. 426; R. v. McGuire, 36 N.B.R. 609; R. v. MacLean, 11 Can. Cr. Cas. 283 (N.S.); R. v. Guerin, 18 O.L.R. 425; R. v. May (1915) 7 W.W.R. 1261 (B.C.); Di Lena v. The King, (1915) 24 Can. Cr. Cas. 301, 24 Que. K.B. 262; R. v. Romano, (1915) 24 Que. K.B. 40, 24 Can. Cr. Cas. 30; R. v. Dickman, (1910) 26 Times L.R. 640; R. v. Hill, 33 N.S.R. 253; R. v. Corby, 30 N.S.R. 330.

Incriminating questions.-Answer not receivable against witness.

5. No witness shall be excused from answering any question upon the ground that the answer to such question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person.

2. If with respect to any question a witness objects to answer upon the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering such question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act, or by reason of such provincial act, compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or receivable in evidence against him in any criminal trial, or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of such evidence.

Incriminating answers where compelled after protest]—See note to Code sec. 263; re Ginsberg, 40 O.L.R. 136; R. v. Coote (1873) 42 L.J.P.C. 45 (Quebec appeal); R. v. Van Meter, 11 Can. Cr. Cas. 207 (Terr.); R. v. Lovitt, 13 Can. Cr. Cas. 15 (N.S.); ex parte Ferguson, 17 Can. Cr. Cas. 437 (N.S.).

Evidence of mute.

6. A witness who is unable to speak, may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible.

Expert witnesses.-Not more than five without leave. When leave to be obtained.

7. Where, in any trial or other proceeding, criminal or civil, it is intended by the prosecution or the defence, or by any party, to examine as witnesses professional or other experts entitled according to the law or practice to give opinion evidence, not more than five of such witnesses may be called upon either side without the leave of the court or judge or person presiding.

2. Such leave shall be applied for before the examination of any of the experts who may be examined without such leave.

Opinion evidence of experts]—See notes to Code secs. 19, 259, 307, 308, 966; R. v. Preeper, 15 S.C.R. 409; R. v. Moke [1917] 3 W.W.R.

576, 28 Can. Cr. Cas. 296 (Alta.); article in 12 Bench and Bar (N.S.) 287; R. v. Bleiler (1912) 2 W.W.R. 5 (Alta.); Canadian Northern Western Ry. v. Moore, 53 S.C.R. 519, affirming 8 Alta. L.R. 379; re Goodman (1916) 10 W.W.R. 1178, 26 Man. R. 537; 26 Can. Cr. Cas. 254; C.P.R. v. Jackson, 52 S.C.R. 281, affirming Jackson v. C.P.R., 9 Alta. L.R. 137, 31 W.L.R. 726.

Comparison of handwriting.

8. Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses; and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute.

Comparison of disputed writing]-See notes to Code secs. 466 (on forgery), 317 and 334 (libel); R. v. Ranger, 30 Can. Cr. Cas. 65; Thompson v. Thompson, 4 O.L.R. 442; Kalmet v. Keizer (1910) 3 Alta. L.R. 26; R. v. Dixon (No. 2), 3 Can. Cr. Cas. 220, 29 N.S.R. 462; R. v. Grinder, 11 B.C.R. 370; Scott v. Crerar, 14 A.R. 152 (Ont.); R. v. Law, 19 Man. R. 259; United States v. Ford (1916) 10 W.W.R. 1042, 26 Can. Cr. Cas. 430, 34 W.L.R. 912 (Man.); Pratte v. Voisard, 57 S.C.R. 184; Fohoel v. Darwish [1918] 1 W.W.R. 627, 13 Alta. L.R. 180, [1918] 2 W.W.R. 525, 13 Alta. L.R. 312; Dominion Permanent v. Morgan, 7 W.W.R. 844, 50 S.C.R. 485.

Adverse witnesses may be contradicted.-Previous statements.

9. A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by general evidence of bad character, but if the witness, in the opinion of the court, proves adverse, such party may contradict him by other evidence, or, by leave of the court, may prove that the witness made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present testimony; but before such last mentioned proof can be given the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, shall be mentioned to the witness, and he shall be asked whether or not he did make such statement.

Adverse witness]-See R. v. May (1915) 7 W.W.R. 1261 (B.C.); R. v. Hutchinson, 11 B.C.R. 24; R. v. Laurin, 6 Can. Cr. Cas. 135 (Que.); Greenough v. Eccles, 5 C.B.N.S. 784; Maver v. G.T.P., 5 W.W.R. 212 (Alta.); Hamm v. Bashford, 9 W.W.R. 1044, 9 Sask. L.R. 68, reversing same case sub nom., Re Rosthern Election, 8 W.W.R. 793.