Types de documents divulgables de première partie

De Le carnet de droit pénal
Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2020. (Rev. # 22666)

Principes généraux

Il n’existe aucune obligation constitutionnelle de « produire des originaux documentaires ».[1] Il suffit de donner accès aux originaux pour inspection.[2]

Les documents, y compris les déclarations et les notes de police, doivent être divulgués en vertu de l'article 603 :

Droit de l’accusé

603 Un accusé a droit, après qu’il a été renvoyé pour subir son procès ou lors de son procès :

a) d’examiner sans frais l’acte d’accusation, sa propre déclaration, la preuve et les pièces, s’il en est;
b) de recevoir, sur paiement d’une taxe raisonnable, déterminée d’après un tarif fixé ou approuvé par le procureur général de la province une copie :
(i) de la preuve,
(ii) de sa propre déclaration, s’il en est,
(iii) de l’acte d’accusation;

toutefois, le procès ne peut être remis pour permettre à l’accusé d’obtenir des copies, à moins que le tribunal ne soit convaincu que le défaut de l’accusé de les obtenir avant le procès n’est pas attribuable à un manque de diligence de la part de l’accusé.

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 603; L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 101(A)

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

Note: 603

Au minimum, la Couronne devrait divulguer les déclarations « peut dire » ou « dira » de tout témoin qu'elle propose de citer au procès.[3]

Les éléments de preuve qui se présentent sous une forme indéchiffrable, comme des données chiffrées déverrouillables, n'ont pas besoin d'être communiqués à la défense à titre de divulgation, car la Couronne ne peut pas les vérifier correctement pour déterminer s'ils sont divulgables ou non. [4]

Il incombe à l'avocat de la défense de s'assurer que l'accusé a eu la possibilité d'examiner les enregistrements.[5]

L'expression « sa propre déclaration » comprend à la fois les déclarations non assermentées faites lors de l'enquête préliminaire et les déclarations faites à la police.[6] Elle comprend les déclarations faites par l'accusé au moment de l'arrestation.[7] Toutefois, elle n'inclut aucune déclaration jamais recueillie de l'accusé.[8]

Un juge a le pouvoir d'ordonner la divulgation de toute déclaration ou de tout document afin d'assurer « l'équité fondamentale envers l'accusé ».[9]

  1. ↑ R c Stinchcombe, 1995 CanLII 130 (CSC), [1995] 1 RCS 754, par Sopinka J, aux paras 1 to 2
    R c Blencowe, 1997 CanLII 12287 (ON SC), 118 CCC (3d) 529, par Watt J
  2. ↑ , ibid.
    Stinchombe (1995), supra
  3. ↑ R c Stinchombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (CSC), [1991] 3 RCS 326, par Sopinka J, au para 30
  4. ↑ R c Beauchamp, 2008 CanLII 27481 (ON SC), 58 CR (6th) 177, par R Smith J
  5. ↑ MRW, supra, aux paras 27, 28
    voir également art. 10 de la LEC
  6. ↑ R c Savion, 1980 CanLII 2872 (ON CA), 52 CCC (2d) 276, par Zuber JA, au para 25
  7. ↑ R c Hieng, 2011 ONSC 4245 (CanLII), par Ramsay J
  8. ↑ , ibid.
  9. ↑ Re Regina and Arviv, 1985 CanLII 161 (ON CA), 19 CCC (3d) 395, par Martin JA

Format de la divulgation

Accessibilité

La divulgation doit être faite dans un format raisonnablement « exploitable ».

Avant que la divulgation puisse être « significative », les documents doivent être « organisés et formatés » de manière à être « raisonnablement accessibles ».[1]

La pertinence de la divulgation est une détermination factuelle fondée sur toutes les circonstances de l'affaire.[2]

Obligation de l'accusé de soulever des questions d'accessibilité

La défense a l'obligation d'examiner la divulgation électronique pour s'assurer que tous les fichiers sont accessibles correctement, si certains fichiers sont illisibles et si des logiciels supplémentaires nécessaires seraient nécessaires pour y accéder correctement. [3]

Accusé en détention

Lors de l'évaluation du caractère raisonnable du format, il faut tenir compte du fait que l'accusé est en détention.[4]

Le centre de détention provisoire doit disposer de l'équipement nécessaire pour faciliter l'accès à la divulgation.[5]

  1. ↑ R c Oszenaris, 2008 NLCA 53 (CanLII), 236 CCC (3d) 476, par Barry JA, au para 19 ("... that electronic disclosure is meaningful if the disclosure materials are reasonably accessible -- a matter to be assessed in the circumstances of each case. I also agree a significant factor in assessing accessibility is the manner in which the material is electronically organized and formatted. Accessibility may also depend upon the circumstances of the accused, including accused's counsel.")
    R c Beckett, 2014 BCSC 731 (CanLII), par Meiklem J, aux paras 7 to 8
  2. ↑ R c Zanolli, 2018 MBCA 66 (CanLII), par Hamilton JA, au para 68
  3. ↑ , ibid., aux paras 70 à 71
  4. ↑ R c Therrien, 2005 BCSC 592 (CanLII), 72 WCB (2d) 116, par Barrow J (custody "is an important circumstance to consider when assessing the reasonableness with which he can access the disclosed material.")
  5. ↑ R c Chan, 2003 ABQB 759 (CanLII), [2003] AJ No 1117, per Sulyma J - le centre de détention provisoire doit acheter un ordinateur pour permettre à l'accusé d'écouter l'enregistrement de l'écoute électronique sur CD-ROM
    See also: R c Cheung, 2000 ABPC 86 (CanLII), [2000] AJ No 704 (ABPC), par Maher J and R c Grant, [2003] MJ No 382 (MBQB)(*pas de liens CanLII)

Formulaire électronique et papier

L'accusé n'a pas droit à la divulgation sous la forme de son choix. La Couronne peut décider de la forme qu'elle prendra. Ce pouvoir discrétionnaire est révisable.[1] Le principal élément révisable de la divulgation est de savoir si elle est « raisonnablement accessible » et peut inclure si la divulgation électronique était « organisée et consultable ».[2] Le caractère raisonnable doit tenir compte des circonstances et des capacités de l'accusé et de l'avocat en question.[3]

Lorsque la forme de divulgation est « telle que l'accusé n'est pas en mesure d'accéder à l'information, il ne s'agit pas d'une divulgation significative. »[4]

Plus le volume de documents divulgués est important, plus le besoin d'organisation et de capacités de recherche raisonnables est grand.[5]

La simple absence de compétences informatiques de l'accusé ou de l'avocat n'empêchera pas le recours à la divulgation électronique tant que ces compétences sont « acquises relativement facilement. »[6]

L'avocat doit pouvoir imprimer la divulgation de manière lisible afin de pouvoir communiquer efficacement avec leur client.[7]

There is no absolute right to original documents, however, the Crown must explain if the Crown no longer has possession of it. Lost or destroyed documents due to unacceptable negligence will breach the duty to disclose.[8]

Computer Literacy Expected

There is unlikely merit to suggest that the disclosure should accommodate counsel who is computer illiterate.[9] Counsel are expected to be "in a position to utilize a computer for the management of large volumes of materials."[10]

Index Required on Voluminous Cases

When electronic disclosure becomes particularly voluminous, there is an obligation to provide a meaningful index.[11]

Crown Duty to Familiarize Counsel with Tools

Where the Crown uses electronic disclosure, the Crown has an obligation to ensure that counsel is familiar with necessary software tools to review the materials.[12]


  1. ↑ R c Beckett, 2014 BCSC 731 (CanLII), par Juge Meiklem, au para 8
    cf. R c Hallstone Products, 1999 CanLII 15107 (ON SC), 140 CCC (3d) 145, par Juge LaForme - suggère que la divulgation nécessite une copie papier, ce qui n'est probablement pas pertinent compte tenu de l'évolution de la technologie
  2. ↑ Beckett
    R c Dunn, 2009 CanLII 75397 (ON SC), 251 CCC (3d) 384, par Boswell J - ("form of disclosure must be accessible and adequate to enable an accused to exercise his or her constitutional right to make full answer and defence") and para 55
  3. ↑ Beckett, supra
  4. ↑ Dunn, supra, au para 53
  5. ↑ Dunn, supra, au para 59
  6. ↑ Beckett, supra
  7. ↑ R c Piaskowski, 2007 MBQB 68 (CanLII), 5 WWR 323, par Sinclair J, au para 84 ("Electronic disclosure must permit counsel to be able to print copies of the documents and images in a readable manner so as to be able to communicate effectively with his or her client.")
  8. ↑ R c FCB, 2000 NSCA 35 (CanLII), 142 CCC (3d) 540, per Roscoe JA, au para 10
    see Lost or Destroyed Evidence
  9. ↑ R c Rose, 2002 CanLII 45358 (QC CS), , [2002] QJ 8339, par Martin J, aux paras 13 to 14
    R c Jonsson, 2000 SKQB 377 (CanLII), [2000] SJ No 571 (SKQB), par Klebuc J
  10. ↑ R c Oszenaris, 2008 NLCA 53 (CanLII), 236 CCC (3d) 476, par Barry JA, au para 20
  11. ↑ R c Jarvie, 2003 CanLII 64366 (ONSC), , [2003] OJ No 5570 (ONSC), par Templeton J
    R c Barges, 2005 CanLII 34815 (ONSC), , [2005] OJ No 4137 (ONSC), par Glithero J
  12. ↑ Piaskowski, supra, au para 84 ("Where the Crown wishes to make electronic disclosure as opposed to paper disclosure, the Crown has a further obligation to assist counsel lacking familiarity with the software utilized, and an unrepresented accused who bona fide has limited or no computer skills with reasonable access to materials that form part of the disclosure. This further obligation may range from training on the use of the software through the provision of computer equipment and may include the obligation to provide paper copies of all disclosure. This would depend on the circumstances of each case. ")

Tools and Equipment to Examine Evidence

The crown does not necessarily have to provide the proper software necessary to examine the evidence. Software is not "information" and so does not have to be disclosed.[1]

The Crown does not need to pay for the necessary training required to use the software either.[2]

  1. ↑ R c Cox, 2003 ABQB 212 (CanLII), per Nation J, au para 15 - Crown does not need to provide copy of EnCase forensic software to defence
    R c Radwanski, 2006 CanLII 43496 (ONSC), par Roccamo J
  2. ↑ Radwanski - judge rules no need to give software or training when they could attend the RCMP station and use the police copy

Typical Components of a Disclosure Package

Police compile a package of the evidence consisting of the notes, reports and statements generated during their investigation that is forwarded to the Crown Attorney's office. This usually comprises the initial disclosure package that is made available to the Defence counsel.

Disclosure packages can contain any of the following:

  1. the Information outlining the charges laid;
  2. the Crown Sheet or Crown Brief summarizing in the evidence in narrative form and listing the witnesses that are available;
  3. the Police Notes consisting of handwritten notes made by all the officers involved in the case during their investigation;
  4. the Witness statements consisting of the verbatim recollection of the potential witnesses to the offence (written, audio, or video form);
  5. A Cautioned Statement of the accused
  6. the Criminal record of the accused as recorded in provincial databases or CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) printout;
  7. Copies of Court Orders (Probation Orders; Prohibition Orders; Recognizances)
  8. Expert Reports
  9. Certificates of analysis (often for breathalyzer machine results; drug analysis; or firearms test results);
  10. the Medical records of the victim in cases of resultant injuries;
  11. Restitution claims where property has been lost or damaged;
  12. Photographic evidence often consisting of photos of the scene of the incident or injuries.

Further material requested often includes:

  1. Videos or images of accused while in police custody
  2. computer printouts of any police database searches related to the accused
  3. Demands made to client by the police from a script (e.g. Charter caution, breath demand, etc)
  4. Printed logs and audio recordings of police, 911 dispatch, or ambulance transmissions
  5. Notes of any professionals, such as doctors, ambulance crew, fire crew, etc. who was present at scene of the incident
  6. records of testing, maintenance, usage, and calibration of breath device used by accused
  7. notes and reports regarding searches of accused (including strip searches)
  8. Police action reports: Use of Force Reports, Use of Pepper Spray Reports
  9. reports and materials related to police procedure on (use of force, taking statements, crowd control, parking violations, use of taser)
  10. discipline record of officers
  11. criminal records of witnesses
  12. police reports regarding witnesses
  13. records of outstanding charges of witnesses
  14. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) printouts of the log of all dispatch activities[1]
  15. recordings of dispatch communications
  1. ↑ e.g. see R c Holowaychuk, 2013 ABPC 38 (CanLII), 277 CRR (2d) 319, par Thietke J, aux paras 20 to 22

Specific Disclosable Materials

Can Says

There is no disclosure obligations to obtain and disclose a can-say for a witness who is uncooperative in giving a statement.[1]

All witness statements obtained must be disclosed even if they are not going to be witnesses called by the Crown.[2]

Where there are no statements, other information about the witness, including police notes and records concerning the witness, address and occupation, should be disclosed.[3]

  1. ↑ Ministry of Labour v C.S. Bachly Builders Limited et al, 2007 ONCJ 120 (CanLII), par Quon J, au para 51
  2. ↑ Stinchcombe, supra, au p. 344
  3. ↑ Stinchcombe, supra, au p. 344

Crown Notes

The Crown has an obligation to disclose new information, including inconsistencies in statements, that it learns from pre-trial interviews.[1]

Any Crown notes that relate to opinion or analysis are not disclosable.[2]

Notes of the Crown may be subject to solicitor-client privilege and work product privilege.[3] The burden is upon the Crown to establish that the privilege exists.[4]

Investigative statements taken by the Crown must be disclosed.[5] It should normally be in written form but if time does not permit it should be done in writing and followed up in writing.[6] Disclosing Crown notes may be dangerous as they are often only intended to be an aide memoire and not an accurate rendition of facts. This could be used unfairly at trial.[7]

A peace officer or secretary will usually sit in on meetings with witnesses and take any new statements.[8]

Defence have the burden to prove that the notes exist and are likely relevant.[9] If established, the Crown then has the burden to establish the justification for not disclosing the notes.

  1. ↑ R c O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (CSC), [1995] 4 RCS 411, per J
    R c Armstrong, 2005 CanLII 63811 (ON SC), 77 OR (3d) 437, par Himel J
  2. ↑ , ibid.
  3. ↑ R c Brown, [1997] OJ No 6163(*pas de liens CanLII)
  4. ↑ Brown, supra
  5. ↑ R c Regan (1997), 174 NSR (2d) 72 (SC)(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 23
  6. ↑ Regan, supra
  7. ↑ R c Johal, 1995 CanLII 2426 (BCSC), par Braidwood J
  8. ↑ E.g. R c Lalo, [2002] NSJ No 3432 (SC)(*pas de liens CanLII)
    R c Johal, [1995] BCJ No 1271(*pas de liens CanLII) - will say statement produced by third party used to avoid crown being a witness
  9. ↑ Chaplin, supra

Contact Information of Witnesses

Witholding contact information of crown witnesses is in the discretion of the Crown.[1]

It was recommended from the Donald Marshall Inquiry that the name and address of persons with relevant information be disclosed.[2]

Vetting on Security and Privacy Concerns

The contact information of crown witnesses can be withheld for specific security or privacy concerns.[3] This would include situations where threats have been made against witnesses.[4]

Analysis Considerations

Interests to disclose must be balanced against the accused right to make full answer and defence which is enhanced by the ability to contact witness independently.[5]

Courts must still recognize the witnesses right to privacy, and so no party can force a witness to be interviewed.[6] Courts must also protect witnesses from "abusive, harassing, threatening or otherwise improper conduct and to protect witnesses against abusive treatment in and out of Court"[7]

Suggested Protocol

It has been suggested that the following protocol be taken for allowing defence to access crown witnesses:[8]

  1. At the request of the defence, the Crown Attorney shall make available to the defence a room within the courthouse suitable for a confidential interview of the named witnesses by counsel of record;
  2. The interviews are to be strictly confidential; no Crown Attorney or police officer is to be present unless requested by the defence;
  3. The fact of an interview and any and all information obtained during it is to remain strictly confidential. No person, including the witness, the defence counsel, the accused and any other person present for any such interview may disclose any information relating to the interview except as may be necessary in the conduct of the trial itself.
  4. The named witnesses shall be written a letter jointly signed by all principal counsel of record advising them of the request of the defence to interview them at the courthouse. The letter is to advise the witnesses in the clearest of terms of the existence of this ruling and of the right of the accused to interview them subject to their right to decline to participate in any such interview - the decision is strictly theirs to make. Care is to be taken to ensure the witnesses are not left with the impression they should not grant the defence an interview. The letter is to convey to the witnesses that any such interview will be by the defence counsel of record without any police officer or Crown Attorney present. Moreover, they are to be informed of the order of the Court requiring all persons involved in the interview to maintain the confidentiality of the interview process strictly.
Disclosure on Undertakings

When contact information is provided, it may be ordered that the information be disclosed to counsel but only on undertaking not to disclose personally to the accused.[9]

  1. ↑ R c Mearow et al, 2013 ONSC 1865 (CanLII), OJ No 1442, par Koke J, au para 25 citing the Martin Report
  2. ↑ see Stinchcombe
  3. ↑ e.g. R c Charlery,[2011] O.J. No. 2669(*pas de liens CanLII) - required disclosure due to "general" not "specific" concerns
  4. ↑ R c Brown [1997] OJ No. 6165(*pas de liens CanLII)
  5. ↑ Mearow, supra, au para 21
  6. ↑ , ibid., au para 26
  7. ↑ Mearow, supra, au para 26
  8. ↑ , ibid., au para 74
  9. ↑ R c Hitchings, 2017 SKPC 56 (CanLII), par Penner J, au para 33

Source Handler Notes and Source Debriefing Reports

A police officer is assigned as an informer's "handler" who will typically create notes that detail the reliability of the informer, these are the debriefing notes, also known as source debriefing notes (SDRs).[1]

For the purpose of challenging a warrant, the right to full answer and defence only requires that the materials provided to the authorizing justice be made available.[2]

Judges must be "exceedingly cautious" if they engage in editing out information that might disclose a confidential informer as innocuous information may reveal the person's identity.[3] Accordingly, judges should give a great amount of deference to the editing suggested by Crown and investigators.[4]

There is some authority suggesting that there is blanket informer privilege over all SDR and SHN.[5]

  1. ↑ R c Barzal, 1993 CanLII 867 (BCCA), 84 CCC (3d) 289, par curiam
    see also R c Croft, 2013 ABQB 705 (CanLII), 576 AR 333, per Burrows J
  2. ↑ Barzal, supra, au para 44
  3. ↑ R c Leipert, 1996 CanLII 471 (BC CA), 106 CCC (3d) 375, par Southin JA, au para 35
  4. ↑ R c Steeves2004 NBQB 039(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 23
  5. ↑ R c Omar, 2007 ONCA 117 (CanLII), 218 CCC (3d) 242, par Sharpe JA, aux paras 38 to 43
    R c Tingley2010 NBQB 284(*pas de liens CanLII)
    cf. R c Way, 2014 NSSC 180 (CanLII), 345 NSR (2d) 258, par Arnold J

Preparation of Transcripts

There is no obligation on the crown under s. 10 of the Evidence Act to prepare a transcript of a K.G.B. statement for the purpose of cross-examination.[1]

The request for a transcript takes issue with the form in which the disclosure was provided.[2]

If the Crown obtains a transcript of a defence expert's testimony from a previous hearing that is relevant to the trial it must be disclosed.[3]

  1. ↑ R c MRW, 2013 ABCA 56 (CanLII), 544 AR 61, par curiam, aux paras 27, 29
  2. ↑ R c Burns, 2010 SKPC 6 (CanLII), 349 Sask R 258, par Morgan J
  3. ↑ R c L(SE), 2012 ABQB 71 (CanLII), 537 AR 32, per Hillier J
    See also Preuve d'expert qualifiée

Video Statements

Voir également: Obligation de la Couronne de divulguer

Child Pornographic Materials

Voir également: Pornographie juvénile (infraction) et Obligation de la Couronne de divulguer#Pornographie juvénile

Preuve d'expert qualifiée

Voir également: Preuve d'expert qualifiée

Under s. 657.3(3)(c), the Defence must disclose a copy of their expert's report or a can-say of their expert witnesses no later than upon the closing of the Crown's case.

Either side intending to submit expert evidence must disclose "the expert's report and any materials which contributed to the foundation of the report or which are clearly relevant to the witness's credibility must be disclosed."[1]

  1. ↑ R c Friskie, 2001 CanLII 392 (SK PC), 49 WCB (2d) 375, par Snell J, au para 27

List of Witnesses to be Called

The Crown does not need to disclose what witnesses will be called.[1] That being said, it is generally preferable that they do as it would contribute to effective case management and minimize the risk of delays.[2]

The courts have jurisdiction as part of its trial management functions to order the production of a witness list and ordering.[3] If a list is provided, it can be provided without prejudice, on the best efforts to predict its case.[4]

  1. ↑ R c Pinkus, 1999 CanLII 15054 (ONSC), , [1999] O.J. No. 5464, par McKinnon J, aux paras 7 to 9, 11 ("The decision whether to call a witness is solely within the discretion of the Crown. ...For the Court to order the Crown to inform defence as to whether a particular witness will be called would effectively trump Crown discretion.")
  2. ↑ R c Fiddler, 2012 ONSC 2539 (CanLII), 258 CRR (2d) 193, par Fregeau J, au para 48
  3. ↑ R c Browne, 2016 CanLII 106223 (ON SC), par Coroza J, au para 6
    R c Felderhof, 2003 CanLII 37346 (ON CA), 68 OR (3d) 481, par Rosenberg JA
  4. ↑ Browne, supra, au para 9

Device Calibration Records

The "rolling logs" made by Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) of every evaluation they have done is "first party" disclosure.[1]

Historical records relating to the performance of "approved instruments" for an impaired driving investigation are not "first-party" records.[2]

Operational records are not "fruits fo the investigation."[3]

  1. ↑ R c Stipo, 2019 ONCA 3 (CanLII), 370 CCC (3d) 311, par Watt JA
  2. ↑ R c Gubbins, 2018 CSC 44 (CanLII), [2018] 3 RCS 35, per Rowe J (8:1)
  3. ↑ Stipo, supra, au para 113

Records of Police Misconduct

Misc Police Records

Under RCMP practice, detainees who are brought into cells are logged using a C-13 Form.[1]

  1. ↑ R c Schira, 2011 SKPC 140 (CanLII), 382 Sask R 188, par O'Hanlon J, au para 33

Specific Non-Disclosable Materials

Any details on the Crown's review of the records including time, date and completeness of their review is not disclosable.[1]

  1. ↑ R c Black, 1998 CanLII 5042 (NS SC), 515 APR 297, par Saunders J

Voir également

Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Types_de_documents_divulgables_de_première_partie&oldid=22666 »