Generally, three considerations guide the receivability of evidence:
Relevant: Evidence must be relevant in the sense of being probative of a fact a party seeks to establish.
Material: Evidence must also be material in the sense that the fact the evidence is proffered to establish relates to an issue in the case.
Admissible: Finally, the evidence must not contravene any admissibility rule. If one of the requirements is not satisfied, the evidence must not be admitted.
For a detailed summary of these three factors, see Watt J.A.’s analysis in R. v. Luciano, 2011 ONCA 89 (CanLII),273 O.A.C. 273, at paras. 203-211.
The Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements
It is impermissible to assume that because a witness has made the same statement in the past, he or she is more likely to be telling the truth, and any admitted prior consistent statements should not be assessed for the truth of their contents.
As a result, prior consistent statements are not admissible as evidence for the truth of their contents. Such statements lack probative value, are often self-serving, and are hearsay.
R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLII),