Relevance and Materiality: The Basic Rule of Admissibility

• Author: David M. Paciocco/Lee Stuesser
• Pages: 24-43

24

1. THE BASIC RULE OF EVIDENCE

Information can be admitted as evidence where it is relevant to a

material issue in the case.

Information can be considered by the trier of fact solely where it is

“admissible.” Evidence is admissible only if it is relevant to a material

issue in the case. Even if evidence satisfies this basic rule, however, the

trier of fact may still be prevented from considering it. Evidence that is

relevant to a material issue may be caught by an exclusionary rule, of

which there are many, or it may be rejected through the operation of an

exclusionary discretion. Judging relevance and materiality is only the

first step, therefore, in deciding the admissibility of evidence. Whether

evidence is relevant and material is a matter to be decided by the trial

judge as an issue of law.

Often lawyers fail to distinguish between the separate concepts of

relevance and materiality, referring to “immaterial” evidence as being

“irrelevant.” Indeed, it is possible to include the concept of “materiali-

ty” within a wide definition of relevance.1Analytically, however, it is

useful to distinguish between the two concepts.2

1 See, for example, R. v. Arp (1998), 129 C.C.C. (3d) 321 at 338 (S.C.C.).

2 See R. v. Collins (2001), 160 C.C.C. (3d) 85 at paras. 18–19 (Ont. C.A.), for a

description of materiality and relevance, and a general summary of the role these

notions play in determining admissibility.

RELEVANCE AND

MATERIALITY:

THE BASIC RULE

OF ADMISSIBILITY

chapter 2

2. MATERIALITY

Evidence that is not directed at a matter in issue in the case is

“immaterial.” To identify immaterial evidence, ask, “What is my

opponent trying to prove?” and then decide whether the thing

sought to be proved is a matter in issue.

2.1) The Concept Explained

Regardless of the kind of proceeding, courts or tribunals resolving

issues of fact are being asked to settle particular controversies. They are

not interested in information about matters other than those that need

to be settled. Evidence that is not directed at a matter in issue is inad-

missible because it is “immaterial.” By contrast, “[evidence] is materi-

al if it is directed at a matter in issue in the case.”3

For example, if a plaintiff alleges that a particular contract negoti-

ated in 1992 has been breached, evidence about a 1990 contract

between the parties will probably not be material since the existence of,

or compliance with, that contract is not the matter the court is inter-

ested in. On the other hand, if the 1990 transaction is connected fac-

tually to the 1992 transaction, such as where some of its terms have

been incorporated by reference into the later contract, proof of the

1990 contract may become material. Similarly, intoxication is not a

defence to a general intent offence such as common assault. That being

so, a court adjudicating guilt in a common assault prosecution will not

be interested in immaterial evidence establishing the simple intoxica-

tion of the accused. However, the evidence of intoxication may become

material at the sentencing phase of the trial if the accused is found

guilty. By the same token, where a private citizen who is not acting as

a state agent seizes something that amounts to evidence and turns it

over to the police, proof of the manner in which the evidence was

seized will normally be immaterial since it cannot affect the admissi-

bility of the evidence; the Charter, which contains the legal rule for

excluding improperly obtained evidence, applies solely to the actions

of the state or of state agents. On the other hand, if the manner of

seizure might have damaged the item, it may be material to the issue of

the “continuity” of the thing seized when it is being tendered as an

exhibit at the trial.

Relevance and Materiality: The Basic Rule of Admissibility 25

3R.v. B.(L.) (1997), 9 C.R. (5th) 38 at 48 (Ont. C.A.).