In a criminal trial involving allegations of assault, theft, perjury, and conspiracy to obstruct justice by police officers, the Crown sought to introduce Toronto Police Service directives and evidence of standard police practices.
The defence objected on grounds including irrelevance, prejudice, and hearsay.
The court held that the directives and expert evidence regarding general police norms were admissible because they provided context for assessing the accused officers’ conduct and state of mind, particularly regarding omissions in memo books, handling of seized property, disclosure practices, and use of informants.
However, testimony about how particular directives were implemented at a specific police division without personal knowledge was excluded as hearsay.
Selected directives and limited expert evidence were admitted subject to these constraints.
