Parliament et al v. Conley and Park

JurisdictionOntario
JudgeS.J. WOODLEY
Date14 May 2019
Docket Number79524/12
Citation2019 ONSC 2951
CourtSuperior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
3 practice notes
  • Badar v Danish,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • July 19, 2024
    ...that the law does not permit to be considered is inadmissible, even if it is relevant and material: Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951, at para. 17. Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible. Absent the consent of the parties, hearsay can only be admitted under a statu......
  • Alison Braks v. Dundeal Canada (GP) Inc.,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • July 18, 2022
    ...that the law does not permit to be considered is inadmissible, even if it is relevant and material: Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951 (CanLII), at para. 17 [Parliament]. [53]           *7/Hearsay evidence is presumptively i......
  • R v Lam,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • August 6, 2025
    ...Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada, 6th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2022). d. In Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951, Woodley J. noted that in addition to any common law exception, business records which include medical records, are expressly admissible pursu......
5 cases
  • Badar v Danish
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • July 19, 2024
    ...that the law does not permit to be considered is inadmissible, even if it is relevant and material: Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951, at para. 17. Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible. Absent the consent of the parties, hearsay can only be admitted under a statu......
  • Alison Braks v. Dundeal Canada (GP) Inc.
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • July 18, 2022
    ...that the law does not permit to be considered is inadmissible, even if it is relevant and material: Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951 (CanLII), at para. 17 [Parliament]. [53]           *7/Hearsay evidence is presumptively i......
  • 2025 ONCA 851
    • Canada
    • January 1, 2025
    ...“may be shown to affect its weight, but such circumstances do not affect its admissibility”: see Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951, at paras. 33–36; and L. (B.) v. Saskatchewan (Ministry of Social Services), 2012 SKCA 38, 393 Sask. R. 57, at paras. 26–29, respecting s. 50(......
  • Gumbley v Vasiliou
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • December 9, 2025
    ...“may be shown to affect its weight, but such circumstances do not affect its admissibility”: see Parliament et al v. Conley and Park, 2019 ONSC 2951, at paras. 33–36; and L. (B.) v. Saskatchewan (Ministry of Social Services), 2012 SKCA 38, 393 Sask. R. 57, at paras. 26–29, respecting s. 50(......
  • Get Started for Free