In response, the respondents submit that similar fact evidence is admissible only in exceptional circumstances as it imposes considerable prejudice to the opposing party: see Farias v. Chung, 2005 HRTO 22 at para. 159. The respondents submit that similar fact evidence invariably impugns a party’s propensity or general disposition. They further submit that it risks wasting scarce judicial resources by sidetracking proceedings with irrelevant issues, or by leading to “fishing expeditions” for evidence that may well be irrelevant and inadmissible
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.