Admissibility of polygraph test results as evidence in Canada courts

Last revised November 13, 2025

The results of polygraph tests are considered inadmissible as evidence in Canadian courts. The two leading cases are R v. Phillion 1977 CanLII 23 (SCC) and R v. Beland 1987 CanLII 27 (SCC).

In R v. Phillion, the accused recanted his confession and took a polygraph in which he said that he had given a false confession. The accused offered evidence of the polygraph test results and the opinion of the polygraphist that the test answers were true. The accused did not testify at trial. The court ultimately held that the results of the polygraph were inadmissible as they were hearsay and “self-serving, second-hand evidence”.

In R v. Beland, the co-accused made an application to reopen their defence in order to take polygraph tests and submit the results as evidence. The majority held that the results of the polygraph were inadmissible as their sole purpose was to bolster the co-accused's credibility. The court held that this offended several rules of evidence, including the rule against oath-helping, the rule against the admission of past or out-of-court statements by a witness, and the character evidence rule. They also found polygraph test results inadmissible as expert evidence, as the issue at hand was within the experience of the trier of fact.

Although polygraph test results are inadmissible, sometimes the circumstances surrounding the taking of polygraph tests or offers to take one may be admissible as evidence. This entry outlines civil, family, and criminal Canadian cases that consider the admissibility of polygraphs when it comes to these factors.

It's important to note that although test results are considered inadmissible as evidence, the courts have accepted statements or confessions made before or after polygraphs as evidence in certain circumstances. See Admissibility of statements or confessions made before or after polygraph tests for more information.

Civil

Although the results of a polygraph test themselves are inadmissible, a litigant’s willingness to take a polygraph may be relevant and admissible, such as in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Company 1999 CanLII 3051 (reversed on other grounds in 2002 SCC 18). In this case, the plaintiff offered to take a polygraph test as evidence of their good faith and cooperation with the defendant insurance company. As the offer was meant to show the plaintiff’s willingness to cooperate and was only one part of the evidence of such, the court held it was admissible.

Statements made by an opposing party during the administration of a polygraph test may also be admissible, as found in Kerkowich v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance 2001 MBQB 30. In this case, the plaintiff underwent a polygraph test during the police investigation into the fire that damaged his residence. The court found that statements made during the polygraph test were relevant to the defendant's case and allowed the defendant to examine the plaintiff for discovery with respect to those statements, as “questions on the statements would go beyond the issue of credibility.”

Family

Generally, polygraph test results are inadmissible in family courts as well; however, this is not always the case in child welfare and custody disputes where polygraph evidence may be accepted in a limited way, as it was in M.F.Z. v. Director 2004 BCPC 441. This can be seen in several cases across Canada where allegations of abuse were made and those accused applied to enter polygraph tests as evidence to support their denial of the allegations.

• C. (R.M.) v. C. (J.R.), 1995 CanLII 17906 (BC SC): the child’s father took a polygraph test to show he was being truthful when denying the allegations of abusing the child. The judge admitted the test results as corroborative only as, due to the importance of the allegations, all probative and relevant evidence should be admitted.
• Carrier v. Tate 2009 BCCA 183: the child’s counselor provided his expert report, in which he stated that offering to complete a polygraph test indicated the likely innocence of the parent accused of abuse. The court allowed this reference to the polygraph as part of the expert’s report, as it was only one factor considered by the expert and the report did not include test results.  
• Wright v. Tolchard 2020 ONSC 7139: the child’s father filed the affidavit of a forensic polygraph examiner who conducted a test on him, to support his denial of abuse allegations. The court held that the affidavit showed the applicant’s willingness to take a polygraph test but did not consider the test results themselves or the polygraphist’s report.

However, even in child custody cases or cases where abuse is alleged, polygraphs and the circumstances surrounding taking them are not always admissible. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. X. (1986) 12 CPC (2d) 117, a child protection hearing decision released shortly after R v. Beland, regarded an application to admit polygraph evidence. The judge denied the application, stating that treating polygraph evidence differently in civil cases would create an “intolerable inconsistency in our courts”.

Other cases where polygraph evidence was found inadmissible, even when abuse allegations were made, are:

• E.W. v. D.W. a.k.a. D.K., 2005 BCSC 890
• M.G. v. Director of Family and Child Services, 2007 BCSC 461 and its application for leave to appeal 2007 BCCA 415.  
• B.S. v. R.T., 2002 CanLII 53990 (NL SC)
• Durham Children’s Aid Society v. A.S., 2011 ONSC 1001

Criminal

R v. Phillion and R v. Beland remain the leading authorities on criminal law cases regarding the admissibility of polygraph test results. However, other circumstances surrounding polygraphs have been considered by the courts.

• R v. Thorne, 1988 CanLII 7109 (NS CA) found that evidence given by a polygraph operator that the accused had failed a polygraph test was both inadmissible and prejudicial.
• R. v. Mildenberger, 2015 SKQB 299 found that refusing to take a polygraph test also cannot be admitted as it is essentially the accused exercising their right to silence.
• R v. B. (S.), 1997 CanLII 6319 (ON CA) the court held that an offer by the accused to take a polygraph test could have probative value in that it implied the accused was prepared to do something which a guilty person would not. However, this would only be relevant if the accused believed that failing the test could be used against them at trial, despite the test results being inadmissible.
• R v. Gale, 2019 ONCA 519 held that where it is relevant to the credibility of a witness, a party can show that a polygraph was used to secure information from them.
• R v. Bedgood, 1990 CanLII 2491 (NS CA) found on appeal that the accused requesting to and being denied a polygraph test by police should not have been admitted at trial.

Further reading

E.W. v. D.W. a.k.a. D.K., 2005 BCSC 890 

M.G. v. Director of Family and Child Services, 2007 BCSC 461  

British Columbia (Director, Child, Family and Community Services) v. D.M.G., 2007 BCCA 415.  

B.S. v. R.T., 2002 CanLII 53990 (NL SC) 

Durham Children’s Aid Society v. A.S., 2011 ONSC 1001 – on-site at Courthouse Libraries