# data[].attributes.body
The Canada Evidence Act provides specific guidelines for the application of evidence in Canadian federal courts. It prescribes the procedure relating to evidence given by witnesses, ascertaining the admissibility of documents and the extraction of data in electronic form to guarantee fairness and dependability in federal court proceedings.

# data[].attributes.body
In this text, evidence law in Canada is described on the broad level, including the criteria indicating what information the courts can rely on. The work of various scholars is synthesized, having diverse types of evidence (including but not limited to: physical, testimonial, and documentary) However, it is also stress what evidence must be reasonable, reliable and practical ADR processes in civil as well as criminal matters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Law of evidence, the body of regulations governing the proof of the existence of a fact before a court. It falls under federal and provincial legislation. In ma…

# data[].attributes.body
This article reviews evidence law as a legal subfield. In what circumstances, for what purpose and how do the courts determine what proof present in a case is admissible? The piece discusses witnesses’ accounts, documents, among other things and applies the principles of both fairness and truth in legal processes, applicable in criminal law and civil law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
evidence, in law, any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it.

To the end that court decisions are to be based on truth founded on evidence, a primary duty of courts is to conduct proper proceedings so as to hear and consider evidence. The so-called law of evidence is made up largely of procedural regulations concerning the proof and presentation of facts, whether involving the testimony of witnesses, the presentation of documents or physical objects, or the assertion of a foreign law. The many rules of evidence that have evolved under different legal systems have, in the main, been founded on experience and shaped by varying legal requirements of what constitutes admissible and sufficient proof.

Although evidence, in this sense, has both legal and technical characteristics, judicial evidence has always been a human rather than a technical problem. During different periods and at different cultural stages, problems concerning evidence have been resolved by widely different methods. Since the means of acquiring evidence are clearly variable and delimited, they can result only in a degree of probability and not in an absolute truth in the philosophical sense. In common-law countries, civil cases require only preponderant probability, and criminal cases require probability beyond reasonable doubt. In civil-law countries so much probability is required that reasonable doubts are excluded.

The early law of evidence

Characteristic features of the law of evidence in earlier cultures were that no distinction was made between civil and criminal matters or between fact and law and that rational means of evidence were either unknown or little used. In general, the accused had to prove his innocence.

Nonrational sources of evidence

The appeal to supernatural powers was, of course, not evidence in the modern sense but an ordeal in which God was appealed to as the highest judge. The judges of the community determined what different kinds of ordeals were to be suffered, and frequently the ordeals involved threatening the accused with fire, a hot iron, or drowning. It may be that a certain awe associated with the two great elements of fire and water made them appear preeminently suitable for dangerous tests by which God himself was to pass on guilt or innocence. Trial by battle had much the same origin. To be sure, the powerful man relied on his strength, but it was also assumed that God would be on the side of right.

Semirational sources of evidence

The accused free person could offer to exonerate himself by oath. Under these circumstances, in contrast to the ordeals, it was not expected that God would rule immediately but rather that he would punish the perjurer at a later time. Nevertheless, there was ordinarily enough realism so that the mere oath of the accused person alone was not allowed. Rather, he was ordered to swear with a number of compurgators, or witnesses, who confirmed, so to speak, the oath of the person swearing. They stood as guarantees for his oath but never gave any testimony about the facts.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now

The significance of these first witnesses is seen in the use of the German word Zeuge, which now means "witness" but originally meant "drawn in." The witnesses were, in fact, "drawn in" to perform a legal act as instrumental witnesses. But they gave only their opinions and consequently did not testify about facts with which they were acquainted. Nevertheless, together with community witnesses, they paved the way for the more rational use of evidence.

By the 13th century, ordeals were no longer used, though the custom of trial by battle lasted until the 14th and 15th centuries. The judicial machinery destroyed by dropping these sources of evidence could not be replaced by the oath of purgation alone. With the decline of chivalry, the flourishing of the towns, the further development of Christian theology, and the formation of states, both social and cultural conditions had changed. The law of evidence, along with much of the rest of the law of Europe, was influenced strongly by Roman-canonical law elaborated by jurists in northern Italian universities. Roman law introduced elements of common procedure that became known throughout the continental European countries and became something of a uniting bond between them.

Under the new influence, evidence was, first of all, evaluated on a hierarchical basis. This accorded well with the assumption of scholastic philosophy that all the possibilities of life could be formally ordered through a system of a priori, abstract regulations. Since the law was based on the concept of the inequality of persons, not all persons were suitable as witnesses, and only the testimony of two or more suitable witnesses could supply proof.

The formal theory of evidence that grew out of this hierarchical evaluation left no option for the judge: in effect, he was required to be convinced after the designated number of witnesses had testified concordantly. A distinction was made between complete, half, and lesser portions of evidence, evading the problem posed by such a rigid system of evaluation. Since interrogation of witnesses was secret, abuses occurred on another level. These abuses were nourished by the notion that the confession was the best kind of evidence and that reliable confessions could be obtained by means of torture.

Despite these obvious drawbacks and limitations, through the ecclesiastical courts Roman-canonical law gained influence. It contributed much to the elimination of nonrational evidence from the courts, even though, given the formality of its application, it could result only in formal truths often not corresponding to reality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence | Definition, Law, Types, Examples, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
evidence, in law, any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it.

# data[].attributes.body
This image shows a fingerprint, which is often categorized as one of the types of forensic evidence that can be used for investigative and court purposes. The use of fingerprints in evidence law is very crucial, since it provides a means of identification of an individual and relates a suspect to a particular deed or place, and thus, it helps in the quick completion of the case.

# data[].attributes.body
This diagram falls within the scope of evidence law since it provides a general breakdown of two main types of evidence which are known as direct and indirect (circumstantial) evidence. These classifications are important for understanding the role that evidence has in support of facts of the case that is conducted in court.

# data[].attributes.body
The picture shows the tags which are aimed at the documentation of the evidence and the tracking of the chain of custody. These tags, for example, contain information on what the evidence is, when and where it was taken, and who else came in contact with it and when last. A chain of custody for evidence is very important to avoid the possibility of altering or tampering with the evidence presented in court.

# data[].attributes.body
The video covers the hearsay rule within the context of a court hearing these types of cases. It does present, in very simple terms, the meaning of hearsay and why it is not generally accepted in the courtroom. Some general examples are given to illustrate under what conditions a particular type of evidence may be used, such as hearsay with an exception. It also delves into why evidence of this nature is authorized at all: to maintain fairness between the parties. The speaker also makes a few points with respect to the applicable techniques on how to advocate for or against hearsay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Guide to Hearsay Evidence (Meaning, Definition, Exceptions)

# data[].attributes.body
This video opens the viewer’s eyes to the principles that govern evidence in court. Contracts and character evidence are good examples of what is relevant and when it is reasonable to exclude even relevant evidence. This video also emphasizes certain principles necessary to regulate the discussion of sensitive issues, such as the question of a previous conduct, in order to promote justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence Law: The Rule of Relevance and Admissibility of Character Evidence

# data[].attributes.body
This video explains the use of digital evidence such as emails and posts made on social networks in the context of court procedure. It addresses the issues of authentication of the evidence, possibility of reproducing copies as opposed to originals within the best evidence rule, and anticipating and overcoming problems of hearsay. The video starts off by providing case studies on how courts investigate the authenticity of digital evidence and how it should be utilized in practice.