Hearsay Evidence in R. v. Papasotiriou-Lanteigne

Author: Abby Stein

The case R. v. Papasotiriou-Lanteigne provides a detailed examination of the admissibility of hearsay evidence, with a particular focus on the principle of threshold liability. In 2018, the defendants were convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice. As the case proceeded to appeal in October of 2022, the trial judge revisited his decision to admit hearsay evidence presented by the defence. This process prompted a more thorough documentation of the judge’s reasoning, in which it was determined that the admission of the evidence hinged on whether the evidence met the high standard required for threshold reliability.

Background

Mr. Papasotiriou and Mr. Ivezic were charged with the first-degree murder of Mr. Allen Lanteigne.[i] Mr. Lanteigne was found bludgeoned to death in his Toronto home in the spring of 2011.[ii] At the time, Mr. Papasotiriou was married to Mr. Lanteigne but was also engaged in an extra-marital affair with Mr. Ivezic.[iii] After the Crown had closed its case, Mr. Ivezic, who was representing himself, sought to introduce a hearsay statement, made ante-mortem from Mr. Lanteigne to Ms. Sonnia Baby, into evidence.[iv] Ms. Baby, who was a friend and co-worker of the deceased, shared with police in the days following his murder that Mr. Lanteigne confided to her that his husband, Mr. Papasotiriou, was involved with a married man whom he had met in Europe.[v] According to Ms. Baby, Mr. Lanteigne said he had met Mr. Papasotiriou’s boyfriend and that the boyfriend had visited their home.[vi] She was able to recall that this conversation happened at the deceased’s home on the night of Canada’s Olympic hockey victory in 2010 and she was able to provide the names of other people at the dinner.[vii]

Analysis

Hearsay evidence refers to statements made outside the courtroom that are admitted based on the truth of their  contents, without the potential for cross-examination.[viii] To analyze the admissibility of the hearsay statement the Court applied the three-stage framework from R. v. Khelawon, 1) if the statement qualifies as hearsay; 2) if it is hearsay, does one of the traditional hearsay exceptions apply; and 3) if no exception applies, than it is up to the court to determine if the statement is necessary and reliable.[ix] To the first two stages, the statement was determined to be hearsay as it was made outside of Court and was introduced for the truth of its contents, and secondly, the Court determined that no traditional hearsay exceptions applied.[x] Proceeding to the third stage, the Crown conceded that the statement was necessary but argued that it lacked threshold reliability.[xi]

Threshold reliability is met on a balance of probabilities, if the statement is either procedurally reliable or substantively reliable.[xii] Procedural reliability is established if there are adequate alternatives to statements made under oath, in-court testimony, or cross-examination.[xiii] In this case, procedural reliability cannot be met as there are no adequate substitutions to test the evidence presented by Ms. Baby.[xiv] Substantive reliability can be established through the high standard that the hearsay statement in question is inherently trustworthy, and cross-examination would add little value to it.[xv] The judge determined that substantive reliability had been met, due to the informal dinner party setting in which the conversation took place, Ms. Baby’s good recollection of events, and a wealth of corroborating evidence.[xvi] This corroborating evidence included emails which established Mr. Ivezic as Mr. Papasotiriou’s boyfriend and documented their travels to Europe. On top of this, there were other hearsay statements which were admitted as evidence to establish Mr. Lanteigne’s state of mind by the Crown, which had been previously determined to meet the criteria of being necessary and reliable.[xvii] The judge referred to R. v. Bradshaw regarding the reliability of corroborative evidence when determining threshold reliability, stating that, “a trial judge can only rely on corroborative evidence to establish threshold reliability if it shows, when considered as a whole and in the circumstances of the case, that the only likely explanation for the hearsay statement is the declarant's truthfulness about, or the accuracy of, the material aspects of the statement.”[xviii] The corroborating evidence strengthens the information provided by Ms. Baby by providing proof of the relationship between Mr. Ivezic and Mr. Papasotiriou, thus strengthening the reliability of the statement.

The Crown also argued that the statement’s probative value was minimal, and this was outweighed by its potential prejudice, but the judge disagreed.[xix] The judge held that it was critical to Mr. Ivezic’s defence to establish that he knew Mr. Lanteigne, which could only be provided through Ms. Baby’s testimony.[xx] The judge continued that while the probative value of the evidence was not astounding, there was little, if any, prejudicial effect for the jury to hear this statement, as there was other evidence which exposed Mr. Papasotiriou’s affair.[xxi] Finally, since ante-mortem statements from Mr. Lanteigne had been previously introduced by the Crown, the judge ruled that it would be fair for Mr. Lanteigne’s statement to be introduced through Ms. Baby’s testimony.[xxii]

Discussion

Hearsay evidence presents the courts with a unique challenge, as statements made outside of court are difficult to assess  their accuracy and reliability. But, in some cases, these statements are crucial to providing evidence for a fair trial. Hearsay evidence refers to any out-of-court statements made that are admitted as evidence based on the truth of their contents.[xxiii] Generally, hearsay is inadmissible since the original speaker is not present to be cross-examined, which limits the ability of the court to assess the statement’s credibility. This evidence can be admitted if it falls under a recognized exception established through case law or if its necessity and reliability are determined on a case-by-case basis.

The R. v. Papasotiriou-Lanteigne case provides interesting insight into the application of hearsay in admitting statements made ante-mortem by the deceased. The judge’s application of the Khelawon framework highlights the challenges and importance of ensuring hearsay is both necessary and reliable before it can be admitted. Here, it was determined that Mr. Lanteigne’s statement was necessary, as no equivalent evidence could be presented by the defence. However, necessity alone is insufficient—threshold reliability must be established either procedurally or substantively.

In this case, the judge concluded that the casual circumstances in which Mr. Lanteigne’s statement was made, along with no other apparent  reason to mistrust the truth of the statement, aided in determining its reliability. Additionally, Ms. Baby’s clear recollection of events helped  strengthened the perceived truthfulness of the statement. Corroborative evidence also played a significant role in the judge’s evaluation of the statement. As mentioned in R. v. Bradshaw, it was established that corroborative evidence must make the statement’s accuracy or truthfulness the only plausible explanation.[xxiv] Here, the Court pointed to emails and other statements by the deceased that consistently supported the provided information from the hearsay statement. This approach aligns with the court’s responsibility to evaluate corroborative evidence as a factor enhancing the statement’s inherent trustworthiness.

Fairness was also a key tenet of the court’s decision in this case. The fact that the Crown had introduced other ante-mortem statements from the victim to establish the victim’s state of mind prior to his death, with no objection to their necessity or reliability, seemed to  influence the judge to allow the defence’s request for the admittance of the hearsay evidence. The judge determined that it would be unfair to admit one and not the other, especially since Mr. Ivezic’s defence seemed reliant on the information disclosed in this statement. Also, the Judge’s ruling on probative value versus prejudice  is another way that evidence must be balanced when determining hearsay admissibility. While the hearsay’s probative value was moderate, the judge found minimal risk of prejudice. The Court’s approach in this case demonstrates the delicate balance required to allow potentially crucial hearsay evidence in a court proceeding while protecting the integrity of the trial and ensuring both procedural fairness and factual accuracy.

Hearsay Evidence