Bob arrived to John's party late. When he got there, he asked John if Cecilia was still there. John replied, "No, she took off. But she was high as a kite and drunk out of her mind before she left." The R.I.D.E. program stopped Cecilia, but they could not get any blood-alcohol levels due to the Breathalyzer machine malfunctioning. Subsequent investigation reveals that Cecilia killed someone in a hit and run just minutes before her stop in the R.I.D.E. program.

The following questions relate to this scenario and Canadian evidence law.

1) Why can Bob NOT be called to testify that Cecilia was drunk?

1. Because Bob's statement would be admitted for the truth of its contents
2. Because the trier of fact is able to assess the reliability and truthfulness of the person making the statement
3. Because Bob's statement would not be admitted for the truth of its contents
4. Because the trier of fact is able to observe the person making the statement

2) During her prosecution for Impaired Driving Cause Death, Cecilia gives sworn testimony at a preliminary hearing. In order for the Crown to admit this prior testimony at trial, the Crown must rely on:

1. The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and the common law rule
2. The Criminal Code of Canada and the common law rule
3. The Criminal Code of Canada and the Canada Evidence Act
4. The Criminal Code of Canada

3) Following her criminal conviction for Impaired Driving Cause Death, Cecilia is sued for damages by the family of her deceased victim. The plaintiffs wish to have Cecilia's testimony from her criminal trial admitted at the civil trial. To accomplish this, the plaintiffs must rely upon what?

1. The Canada Evidence Act and the common law rule
2. The Criminal Code of Canada and the common law rule
3. The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and the common law rule
4. The Ontario Evidence Act and the common law rule