The amendment of the Canada Evidence Act

Bill C-32’s Amendment and Spousal Witness Testimony

Bill C-32’s amendment to the Canada Evidence Act resulted in a new legal reading. The amendment allows a spouse to be forced to witness against one another if one of them is a defendant, unless their interactions are exclusively marital. (Vashishtha, S. 2016).

Testimony Under Duress and the Distinction between Observation and Communication

First of all, the testimony provided by a partner under duress is inapplicable to observations, according to Backhouse, C. (1991). Before the 2015 amendment, a case called R. v. Gosselin from 1903 examined a situation in which the accused’s wife was summoned to testify by the Crown regarding the discovery of bloodstains on the accused’s drawers. In the verdict of the case, Davies, J., for the majority, determined that interpolating the words for defense into the provision of statutory privilege would do violence to the language of the section. In other words, the judge made a distinction between observation and communication.

Waiver of Evidence and the Matrimonial Communication Privilege

Second, the evidence can be waived by the witness. Even after the amendment of the act, it is still clear that the matrimonial communication privilege by the spouse allows him or her to have control whether the communication can be divulged. In the case of R. v. Jean and Piesinger in 1979, it was held that it was conflicting that a witness who is compelled by the crown cannot rely on the privilege to resist answering a relevant question (Manson, A. 2001).

Marriage Sanctity and Privilege Termination

The other reason why legal marriage should protect someone from having to testify in a court of law is that divorce or death ends the privilege (Mewett, A. W., & Nakatsuru, S. 2000). Since marriage is sanctified and spouses who have chosen to stay together may prefer to keep their matrimonial communications just that, the Crown should respect the spouse privilege and not force her or him to testify since that privilege is only available for legal marriages.

Conclusion

In conclusion, therefore, the sanctity of marriage should protect someone from having to testify in court against the spouse since there is an exception of matrimonial communication in the amendment should not be overlooked (Casavant, L., Morris, C., & Nicol, J. 2014).

References

Backhouse, C. (1991). Petticoats and Prejudice. Women’s Press.

Casavant, L., Morris, C., & Nicol, J. (2014). Bill C-32: An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

Manson, A. (2001). Spousal Testimony in Criminal Cases in Canada.

Mewett, A. W., & Nakatsuru, S. (2000). An introduction to the criminal process in Canada. Carswell.

Vashishtha, S. (2016). ‘Honey Let’s Just Keep the Doors Open’: A Critical Study on the Abrogation of Spousal Privileged Communication in Canada and Its Implications in Criminology.