The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in concluding that a defence witness had adopted a prior out‑of‑court statement made to police and treating that statement as substantive evidence.
The court reviewed the legal principles governing adoption of prior statements, including the requirement that the witness both acknowledge making the statement and affirm its truth based on present memory.
The appellate court found that although the witness admitted making the statement, he did not clearly adopt its contents as true.
Because the trial judge relied heavily on the supposed adoption in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction could not stand.
