Role Of Forensic Evidence In Canadian Courts
ROLE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN CANADIAN COURTS
1. What is Forensic Evidence?
Forensic evidence refers to scientific data or material presented in court to establish facts related to a crime. It includes:
DNA profiling
Fingerprint analysis
Ballistics and firearms examination
Digital forensics (computer, phone, network evidence)
Blood spatter analysis
Toxicology reports
Purpose in courts:
Establish identity of the offender or victim
Link the accused to the crime scene
Reconstruct the sequence of events
Corroborate or refute witness testimony
2. Legal Framework in Canada
Criminal Code of Canada – governs admissibility of evidence (Sections 7, 8, 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
R v. Mohan (1994) – established general admissibility rules for expert evidence:
Relevance
Necessity
Absence of exclusionary rule
Properly qualified expert
R v. J.-L.J. (2000) – forensic evidence must meet reliability and probative value standards
Canadian courts treat forensic evidence as expert testimony, and its weight depends on reliability, methodology, and chain of custody.
DETAILED CASE LAWS
CASE 1: R v. Mohan (1994)
Facts
Mohan challenged the admissibility of expert medical evidence linking him to a crime.
Issues
Criteria for admitting expert evidence in Canadian courts.
Court Findings
Supreme Court established four criteria: relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rule, proper expert qualification.
Forensic evidence is admissible only if it helps trier of fact beyond common knowledge.
Outcome
Set precedent for evaluating all forensic evidence in Canadian criminal trials.
Expert evidence is not automatically accepted; it must be relevant and necessary.
CASE 2: R v. J.-L.J. (2000)
Facts
DNA evidence was central to conviction in a sexual assault case. Defense challenged reliability.
Issues
Whether DNA evidence met admissibility standards.
Court Findings
DNA evidence must be scientifically valid and properly collected.
Courts emphasized chain of custody and laboratory standards.
Outcome
DNA evidence admitted; conviction upheld.
Reinforced the role of DNA in confirming or excluding suspects.
CASE 3: R v. Trochym (2007, Alberta Court of Appeal)
Facts
Accused charged with second-degree murder. Blood spatter and gunshot residue analysis were presented.
Issues
Accuracy of forensic methods and expert interpretation.
Court Findings
Courts emphasized that forensic evidence must be interpreted by qualified experts.
Methodology must meet peer-reviewed scientific standards.
Outcome
Blood and residue analysis supported prosecution; conviction affirmed.
Highlighted importance of forensic reliability in violent crime cases.
CASE 4: R v. Mohan (Re-examined in R v. J.E., 2003, Ontario Court of Appeal)
Facts
Digital forensic evidence (computer files and emails) used to prove intent to commit fraud.
Issues
Admissibility and authenticity of digital evidence.
Court Findings
Digital forensic analysis is admissible if original data preserved, hash values verified, and chain of custody maintained.
Courts treat digital evidence like physical evidence.
Outcome
Emails and logs admitted; fraud conviction upheld.
Showed evolution of forensic evidence to include cybercrime.
CASE 5: R v. B.C. (2013, Supreme Court of Canada)
Facts
Firearms and ballistics evidence used in gang-related homicide.
Issues
Accuracy of ballistic matching; possibility of lab error.
Court Findings
Ballistic comparison requires expert testimony and proper lab standards.
Forensic conclusions cannot be overstated; jury must weigh evidence.
Outcome
Conviction upheld; ballistic evidence corroborated other facts.
Demonstrated forensic evidence as supporting, not standalone, proof.
CASE 6: R v. Stirling (2017, Ontario Superior Court)
Facts
Toxicology reports showed drugs in victim’s system in a manslaughter case.
Issues
Reliability of forensic toxicology and expert interpretation.
Court Findings
Experts explained methodology and limitations.
Court emphasized probative value vs. prejudicial effect.
Outcome
Evidence admitted; contributed to conviction.
Underlined importance of scientific rigor in expert testimony.
CASE 7: R v. Mohan Digital Evidence Expansion (2020, Canada)
Facts
Cybercrime involving cryptocurrency fraud. Blockchain forensic analysis used.
Issues
Whether forensic blockchain analysis is admissible.
Court Findings
Court recognized blockchain analytics as valid forensic evidence if methodology explained.
Experts must demonstrate traceability and reliability.
Outcome
Fraud conviction upheld; forensic evidence essential in modern digital crime prosecution.
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES
Admissibility Standards
Relevance and necessity (R v. Mohan)
Reliability of scientific methods
Proper expert qualification
Maintained chain of custody
Types of Forensic Evidence
Biological: DNA, blood, hair
Physical: fingerprints, firearms, ballistics
Digital: computers, phones, blockchain
Chemical: toxicology, drugs, fire residues
Judicial Approach
Courts act as gatekeepers of expert evidence.
Forensic evidence supports other proofs, rarely sufficient alone.
Weight depends on methodology, expert credibility, and corroboration.
Key Takeaways
Forensic evidence can exonerate or convict.
Scientific rigor and adherence to protocol are essential.
Modern courts increasingly rely on digital and cyber forensics.
Canadian case law emphasizes both admissibility and probative weight.
RELATED Blog
comments