Types of Objections in Court: A Guide

Types of objections: 10 common objections in court

Below are 10 of the most common objections in court.

1. Relevance 

A relevance objection argues that the evidence does not relate to an important fact in dispute. In Canadian courts, evidence is only considered relevant if it helps prove or disprove something that matters to the issues being decided. 

Even when evidence meets this standard, the judge might still exclude it on other grounds. Judges have broad discretion, and their decisions often depend on the context.

Example of relevance

Suppose a person is on trial for fraud. Opposing counsel tries to introduce evidence that the person was convicted of shoplifting—15 years ago. While this prior conviction might seem connected, it does not directly prove whether the person committed fraud in the current case.

2. Hearsay

A hearsay objection challenges testimony about what someone else said outside of court. Because the original speaker can’t be cross-examined, hearsay is generally not admissible (unless it falls under a recognized exception).  Hearsay objections help ensure the reliability and fairness of the evidence that reaches the judge or jury.

Example of hearsay

Witness: “My neighbour told me they saw the accused speeding away from the scene.”

Opposing counsel: “Objection, hearsay.”

This is hearsay because the witness is testifying about what someone else (their neighbour) allegedly said, rather than what the witness personally observed. Such statements are generally inadmissible in court since the original speaker isn’t there to confirm or deny the testimony. 

3. Leading question 

A leading question objection is raised when, on direct examination, a lawyer asks a question that suggests or implies the answer they want the witness to give. Leading questions are not allowed on direct examination but are usually permitted on cross-examination.

Example of leading question

Cross-examiner: “You saw the accused holding a knife, didn’t you?”

Opposing counsel: “Objection, Your Honour. Leading.”

In this example, the cross-examiner’s question suggests the answer—i.e., that the accused was holding a knife—so the objection would likely be sustained. The witness must be free to testify without being prompted toward a particular response.

4. Argumentative

An argumentative objection applies when a lawyer asks a question that challenges or provokes the witness, instead of merely seeking information. These questions can be combative or confrontational and are not permitted because they distract from the fact-finding process.

Example of argumentative

Cross-examiner: “If you were really as badly injured as you claim, you wouldn’t have been able to post vacation photos on social media, would you?” 

This question is argumentative because it is accusatory and attacks the party’s credibility.

5. Opinion

An opinion objection arises when a witness who is not qualified as an expert offers an opinion instead of sticking to the facts. Lay witnesses are generally restricted to describing what they personally saw, heard, or experienced.  Only qualified experts can provide opinions in their area of expertise.

Example of opinion

Witness: “I think the plaintiff has permanent brain damage from the accident.”

Opposing counsel: “Objection, Your Honour. Opinion.”

Unless the witness is a qualified medical expert, they are not permitted to give medical opinions.

6. Asked and answered

An asked and answered objection is used when a lawyer repeats the same question after the witness has already answered. This objection is meant to avoid wasting time and keep the proceedings focused.

Example of asked and answered 

Cross-examiner: “So you drove from Toronto to Ottawa on November 8th?”

Witness: “That is correct.”

Cross-examiner: “So you arrived in Ottawa on November 8th?”

Witness: “Yes.”

Cross-examiner: “So you didn’t stay in Toronto on November 8th?”

Opposing counsel: “Objection, Your Honour. Asked and answered.”

7. Improperly obtained evidence

An improperly obtained evidence objection arises when evidence was gathered in violation of Canadian law. These might include unlawful search or seizure, or denial of the right to counsel. Judges may exclude such evidence to maintain fairness in the trial.

Example of improperly obtained evidence

If the police seize documents from a person’s home without a warrant, and the prosecutor tries to introduce those documents at trial, the defence could object on the basis that the evidence was improperly obtained. The judge may exclude it to ensure the trial remains fair.

8. Privilege

A privilege objection is used when a question seeks information that’s protected from disclosure under the law. In Canada, privileged communications include things like solicitor-client privilege, settlement discussions, and certain spousal communications. 

Example of privilege

Cross-examiner: “What discussions have you and your lawyer had about settling this case?” 

Opposing counsel: “Objection, Your Honour. Privilege.”

This question refers to information protected by solicitor-client privilege, which is confidential and cannot be disclosed in court without the client’s consent.

9. Prejudicial evidence

A prejudicial evidence objection is raised when evidence—even if relevant—is more likely to unfairly sway the judge or jury than to help prove a fact in issue. Judges may exclude evidence if its probative value (i.e., its usefulness in proving something important) is outweighed by its potential to cause unfair prejudice. 

Example of prejudicial evidence

If a lawyer tries to introduce a graphic photo of an accident scene that does not directly prove a fact in issue, opposing counsel could object on the grounds that the evidence is prejudicial. Even if it’s relevant, the judge may exclude it if its emotional impact outweighs its probative value.

10. Character evidence

A character evidence objection is raised when a party tries to introduce damaging information about someone’s character or past misconduct to suggest they acted similarly in the present case. In Canadian law, character evidence is generally not admissible unless it’s directly related to a relevant issue, such as credibility.

Example of character evidence

Cross-examiner: “Isn’t it true that the defendant has always been a dishonest person?” 

Opposing counsel: “Objection, Your Honour. Character evidence.” 

Here, the cross-examiner is attempting to use past behaviour to suggest guilt in the present matter. Since character evidence is generally inadmissible, the judge may sustain the objection and exclude the question.

Should you always object?

Even if you have solid grounds for an objection, it’s not always wise to raise it. Objections are a strategic tool, and timing matters.

The ultimate purpose of objections is to protect your client’s right to a fair trial and maximize their chances of success. But frequent objections—especially in front of a jury—can give the impression that you’re defensive or trying to hide something. If a question or answer is technically objectionable but unlikely to affect the outcome, you may decide it’s better to stay silent.

There are also situations where objectionable testimony from the other side could actually benefit your client. For example, if a witness for the opposing party volunteers damaging or inconsistent testimony, allowing it into the record without objection may strengthen your case.

In short, effective trial advocacy requires not just knowing when you can object, but knowing when you should.

Can you prepare for objections in court?

Trials are inherently unpredictable, so you won’t be able to plan for every possible objection. However, you can be proactive by knowing:

• The key issues of your case
• The expected testimony of your witnesses
• The common types of objections raised in court

Preparation is much easier when the administrative side of your practice is streamlined, freeing up time and energy for case analysis and strategy. Legal practice management software, like Clio Manage, can help by handling your case files, documents, and scheduling.

Final thoughts on types of objections in court

While real-life courtrooms may not be as theatrical as TV dramas, objections remain one of the most powerful tools for protecting your clients and shaping the outcome of a trial. To use them effectively, you need a sound base of legal knowledge and the confidence that comes from a streamlined, well-organized practice.

For trial lawyers in Canada, understanding the most common objections—and how to use them strategically—is essential. Anticipating when objections may arise requires a careful assessment of both the legal issues at stake and the testimony you expect from witnesses. With strong preparation, you can fine-tune your courtroom performance and improve your client’s chances of success.

Objections in court cheat sheet: Quick answers to common questions

What does objection mean in court?

An objection is a formal challenge raised by a lawyer to dispute the admissibility of evidence, a question, or testimony. Its purpose is to ensure that only legally admissible and reliable information is considered by the judge or jury.

What can you object to in court?

In Canada, lawyers may object to questions, evidence, or witness statements that do not comply with the rules of evidence or procedure. Common objections include hearsay, relevance, opinion, leading questions, and privilege. 

What does objection hearsay mean in court?

A hearsay objection arises when a witness testifies about something they heard outside of court, rather than what they personally observed. Since the original speaker cannot be cross-examined, hearsay is generally inadmissible.

What is objection leading in court?

A leading question is one that suggests its own answer within the question. Objections to leading questions usually arise in direct examination. Leading questions are generally allowed on cross-examination or for hostile witnesses.

What does objection argumentative mean in court?

An argumentative objection is raised when a lawyer’s question is more of an attack or inference than a request for information. This objection prevents improper questioning, protects the witness from unfair treatment, and keeps examinations focused on the facts.

What does objection sustained mean in court?

Objection sustained means the objection is accepted and the evidence or question is not allowed. Lawyers must rephrase or drop the line of questioning and the jury (if present) is instructed to disregard the excluded material.

What does objection overruled mean in court?

Objection overruled means the objection is denied and the evidence or question is allowed to proceed. The judge has determined that the material does not breach the rules of evidence and may be taken into consideration.

Sustained vs. overruled: what’s the difference?

Sustained means the judge agrees with the objection and disallows the evidence or question. Overruled means the judge disagrees with the objection and allows the evidence or question to continue. These rulings help maintain fairness by controlling what the jury or judge can consider.