Revisiting Baldree: Analyzing the Underlying Basis for the Admission of Implied Assertions

Abstract

This paper analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Baldree. In Baldree, the Supreme Court found that implied assertions to be inadmissible hearsay contrary to prior jurisprudence which considered such calls to be circumstantial evidence or statements tendered for a non-hearsay purpose. This paper seeks to analyze the underlying basis for the admission of implied assertions. It argues that while such statements do have hearsay content, they are rendered qualitatively unique and "reliable" by virtue of their circumstantial connection with other surrounding facts.