When is evidence of good character not admitted?

Evidence of good character is also generally not admitted because it violates the related rule against proof of collateral facts of marginal relevance. … … The policy reasons for limiting proof of facts that are technically relevant, but too remote, were also discussed in Robertson v. Edmonton (City) Police Service (#9), supra, at paras. 12-14. A "habit" of responding in a regular mechanical way to a particular set of circumstances may have probative value. For example, a doctor may testify that he routinely did a medical procedure in a particular way. But to attempt to show that someone was in the "habit" of acting "reasonably and properly" provides no probative evidence. This is merely evidence of general good character.