[1] A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.
[14] Cases that lack specific and timely objections are sometimes referred to as having "poor records" because errors made by the lower court may not be reviewed on appeal.
[citation needed] A variety of social policies operate to exclude relevant evidence.
Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and plea negotiations, mainly because it is thought that the use of such evidence discourages parties from carrying insurance, fixing hazardous conditions, offering to settle, and pleading guilty to crimes, respectively.
[citation needed] The Canadian judiciary system uses the term "probative", which also signifies "prove to be worthy".
In R. v. Wray,[15] the term "probative value" is used to explain that "judges in criminal cases do not have a discretion to exclude evidence because of how it was obtained.
Exclusion of evidence on the ground that, although its probative value was unquestionable, it was obtained by methods which the judge considers to be unfair, has nothing to do with his duty to secure a fair trial for the accused.
As per Barwick CJ in Wilson,[23] "The fundamental rule governing the admissibility of evidence is that it be relevant.
[25] Since evidence that is relevant has the capability to affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, it is "probative".
[31] John Stratton, NSW Deputy Senior Public Defender, opined at a 2008 legal conference that there was no clear dividing line between the two, although some cases had determined precedents for use.
He thought that "the tendency and the coincidence principles should be regarded as alternative and overlapping avenues by which material may be introduced into evidence".