The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn says that evidence of a criminal conviction is not admissible in subsequent civil proceedings to prove the facts on which the conviction is founded, where those facts are an issue in the civil proceedings. There has been widespread criticism of the rule. The strongest argument against change is that the trier of fact in the civil action may give more weight to the conviction than it deserves. The risk is particularly great in civil jury trials. On the other hand the convicted person had not only been present, but has all the safeguards that the criminal law provides, including the presumption of innocence. Recommendations are included in statutory form.

This report recommends that evidence of the conviction of any person for an offence in a Canadian court, whether federal or provincial, be admissible to prove that be committed that offence, whether he was convicted on a plea of guilty or otherwise, and whether or not he is a party to the civil proceeding. The report also recommends that the contents of the information, complaint, indictment or charge sheet be admissible; that in actions for defamation, proof of a subsisting conviction be conclusive evidence that the convicted person committed the offence; and that in all other cases it be simply admissible.