Product Details
Book S.O. + CD-ROM
Annual volumes supplied on standing order subscription 2 supplements per year, $35-$40 per supplement, invoiced separately 
Approximately 1380 pages
1 volume bound

Can We Help?

If you need assistance, please call us at (416) 609-3800 (Toronto & international) / 1-800-387-5164 (toll free Canada & US).

We will be glad to assist you.

Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence 2017 + CD
Availability: Coming Soon

Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence is the single, reliable resource you can turn to for the answers to evidentiary questions.

Authored and annotated by a renowned criminal law authority, Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence synthesizes all the statute and common law evidence material into one easy-to-use handbook. Designed like an annotated statute, all the statutory rules of evidence are addressed, followed by case law annotations for the Canada Evidence Act and also for selected evidentiary sections of the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act .


What’s New


Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal Cases

  • R. v. Arens (ABCA) – prior to the conclusion of trial proceedings, the trial judge has the authority to reverse a ruling made on a voir dire – the judge must give counsel reasonable notice and must allow counsel to advance arguments on any issue arising out of the reversal.
  • R. v. Ascencio-Chavez (BCCA) – an appellate court should not interfere with a decision on whether or not to embark on a voir dire, except in instances when the trial judge had not exercised his or her discretion judicially.
  • R. v. B.(S.) (NLCA) – section 276 of the Criminal Code does not provide an exception to the collateral facts rule – this section pertains to relevant evidence that warrants exclusion by virtue of its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value.
  • R. v. Beauregard (ABCA) – While police have an implementational duty to provide the accused with access to counsel, it is under no further obligation to ensure accused contacts and speaks to counsel, particularly in instances when the accused says and does nothing to alert police to the possibility that counsel had not been reached.
  • R. v. Caesar (ONCA) – to qualify for reception under the public documents exception, a judicial record must (a) have been made by an official with a duty to the public; (b) have been made in discharge of that official’s duty; (c) have been intended to serve as a permanent record; and (d) be available for public inspection.
  • R. v. Dominic (ABCA) – “anecdotal evidence” is not necessarily inadmissible evidence – a police expert’s evidence about drug use gained through others does not, alone, diminish the validity of the special knowledge acquired in this way.
  • R. v. Dupe (ONCA) – the exclusion of hearsay evidence serves not only to protect the integrity of the truth-seeking function of the trial, but also to preserve its fairness.
  • R. v. McGuffie (ONCA) – Where the first and second lines of a Grant inquiry make a strong case for exclusion of constitutionally-tainted evidence, the third line of inquiry will seldom tip the balance in favour of inclusion;  however, where the first two lines provide weaker support for exclusion, the third line of inquiry will more often result in inclusion of the evidence.
  • R. v. Soni (ABCA) – a new trial is not warranted by the Supreme Court of Canada’s restatement of a rule of evidence, if the trial judge had taken into consideration the objectives and principles underlying the rule.
  • R. c. Stevens (QCCA) – Section 10(b) of the Charter provides a person with a right to the assistance of counsel, not a right to “one phone call”.
  • R. v. Verna (BCCA) – where both sides agree that hearsay evidence is to be admissible, the trial judge need not embark upon an independent inquiry to ascertain whether their positions are legally sound.
  • R. v. Villaroman (SCC) – when assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence need not be limited to those arising from proven facts – they may also arise from the absence of evidence.
  • R. v. Worme (ABCA) – when a Mr. Big operation is admitted into evidence, a police officer should not be permitted to vouch for the reliability of the techniques used to elicit truthful confessions and to guard against fabrications – this could be tantamount to oath-helping evidence.
About the Author
The Honourable Mr. Justice David Watt is a Judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. He was a Judge for the Superior Court of Justice for 22 years and was Crown Counsel in Ontario for 13 years, including eight years as Senior Crown Counsel (Criminal Law), Ministry of the Attorney General. Mr. Justice Watt is a well-known lecturer and has taught criminal law, evidence and procedure to law students, practitioners and judges at several Canadian law schools and in Continuing Legal Education programs across Canada for over 30 years. He is the Honourary Chair of the National Criminal Law Program.