But dissenting judges, in their reasons, expressed concern about the majority ruling in which hypnosis is described as a "novel science" and "hypnotically refreshed memories" are now consideredinadmissible as evidence.
"This ignores the fact that the technique has been used in Canada for almost 30 years, and has been employed in Canadian criminal investigations to assist in memory retrieval of both Crown and defence witnesses for a similar amount of time," they wrote. "Hypnosis is not new science, nor is its use in forensic investigation new."