« Rôle du juge de première instance » : différence entre les versions

{{Currency2|November|2022}}

See also {{CanLIIRP|Valente|1ftzs|1985 CanLII 25 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 673, (1985), 23 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perSCC|Le Dain J}}<br>  

{{CanLIIRP|Osolin|1frvz|1993 CanLII 54 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 595}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}} (in dissent){{atL|1frvz|?}}</ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Burns|1frvk|1994 CanLII 127 (SCC)|[1994] 1 SCR 656}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario|fzw43|2013 SCC 43 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 3}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{AtsL|fzw43|28|, 30}}, {{atsL-np|fzw43|38|}}<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Ruffo v Conseil de la magistrature|1frgm|1995 CanLII 49 (SCC)|[1995] 4 SCR 267}}{{perSCC|Gonthier J}}

See also {{CanLIIRPC|Moreau‑Bérubé v New Brunswick (Judicial Council)|5221|2002 SCC 11 (CanLII)|[2002] 1 SCR 249}}{{perSCC-H|Arbour J}}{{atL|5221|75}}<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 301 v Montreal (City)|1fr36|1997 CanLII 386 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 793}}{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}{{atL|1fr36|73}} - refereed to as the rule that “no man be condemned unheard"<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|A(LL) v B(A)|1frdk|1995 CanLII 52 (SCC)|[1995] 4 SCR 536}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}, at para. 27<br>

Le droit d'être entendu confère également à une personne « le droit de connaître les arguments à défendre ».

{{CanLIIRPC|Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)|1qljj|2007 SCC 9 (CanLII)|[2007] 1 SCR 350}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|1qljj|53}} ("a fair hearing requires that the affected person be informed of the case against him or her, and be permitted to respond to that case")

{{CanLIIRP|MacLean|1ms63|1991 CanLII 2526 (NS CA)|(1991), 106 N.S.R. (2d) 213}}{{perNSCA|Chipman JA}}{{AtL|1ms63|5}} ("In our opinion, it is incumbent upon a trial judge to give a party appearing before him an opportunity to present argument before making a decision on any issue. In particular, a party must be allowed to make submissions at the close of the evidence. ...")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Aucoin|1tx6w|1979 CanLII 29 (SCC)|[1979] 1 SCR 554}}{{perSCC-H|Laskin CJ}}

{{supra1|MacLean}} at para 5 "(In the context of a criminal case, these rights are among those guaranteed to an accused as a component of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter, and more particularly by s. 11(d) thereof, and by s. 802(1) of the Criminal Code.")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Garofoli|1fss5|1990 CanLII 52 (SCC)|[1990] 2 SCR 1421}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} at 1449 citing {{CanLIIRP|Dersch|1p6pl|1987 CanLII 155 (BC CA)|36 CCC (3d) 435}}{{perBCCA|Esson JA}}<br>

{{CanLIIR|Agengo|fm6dx|2011 ABQB 430 (CanLII)}}{{atL|fm6dx|15}} ("...the principle of natural justice and specifically the audi alteram partem rule has no absolute requirement of according persons entitled to its benefit an oral or in‑person hearing before the ultimate decision‑maker...")<Br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Hoffman‑La Roche Ltd v Delmar Chemicals Ltd|227mx|1965 CanLII 57 (SCC)|[1965] SCR 575}}{{perSCC-H|Martland J}}{{atL|227mx|23}}, 50 DLR (2d) 607{{fix}}

{{supra1|Agengo}} at para 15 ("...it is recognized by the courts that frequently, the requirement to give a hearing is satisfied by providing an opportunity to make written submissions..")<bR>

{{seealso|Case Management|Rules of Court}}

{{CanLIIRP|Morin|1fs8t|1992 CanLII 40 (SCC)|[1992] 3 SCR 286}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} at 296 (SCR)<br>

{{supra1|Morin}}{{atp|296}} (SCR)</ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Walle|fs5k8|2012 SCC 41 (CanLII)|[2012] 2 SCR 438}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atL|fs5k8|46}}<br>

{{supra1|Walle}}{{atL|fs5k8|46}}<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Dagenais|hq0mg|2018 ONCA 63 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|McCombs JA}} (ad hoc){{atL|hq0mg|55}} ("It is well-established that, subject to due process concerns, a conviction may be founded on a theory of liability that has not been advanced by the Crown, provided that theory is available on the evidence")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Pickton|2bttm|2010 SCC 32 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 198}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atsL|2bttm|19| to 21}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Malmo-Levin|1gbdn|2003 SCC 74 (CanLII)|[2003] 3 SCR 571}}{{perSCC|Gonthier and Binnie JJ}}</ref>  

{{seealso| Analyser les témoignages}}

{{CanLIIRP|Potts|g1k0t|1982 CanLII 1751 (ON CA)|66 CCC (2d) 219}}{{perONCA-H|Thorton JA}} at p. 204<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Anderson|g784t|2014 SCC 41 (CanLII)|[2014] 2 SCR 167}}{{atL|g784t|58}}

{{CanLIIRP|Rose|1fqq5|1998 CanLII 768 (SCC)|[1998] 3 SCR 262}}{{perSCC|Cory, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ}}</ref>

see [[Crown Duty to Disclose|Disclosure]]<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Doyle|1z6fv|1976 CanLII 11 (SCC)|[1977] 1 SCR 597}}{{perSCC|Ritchie J}}</ref>  

{{CanLIIRP|Cunningham|28tlt|2010 SCC 10 (CanLII)|[2010] 1 SCR 331}}{{perSCC|Rothstein J}}{{atL|28tlt|19}}</ref>

{{supra1|Doyle}} ("Whatever inherent powers may be possessed by a superior court judge in controlling the process of his own Court, it is my opinion that the powers and functions of a magistrate acting under the ''Criminal Code'' are circumscribed by the provisions of that statute and must be found to have been thereby conferred either expressly or by necessary implication.")</ref>  

{{CanLIIRP|Adams|1frdt|1995 CanLII 56 (SCC)|[1995] 4 SCR 707}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1frdt|29}}</ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Cook|1fr1f|1997 CanLII 392 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 1113}}{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}{{atL|1fr1f|56}} ("...nor do I think that a trial judge should ever order the Crown to produce a witness.  If the Crown wished to adopt such a procedure in a given case, however, this would, of course, be within the legitimate exercise of its discretionary authority.")<br>

{{removed|(1), (2) and (3)}}

{{CanLIIRP|Caron|2fkpf|2011 SCC 5 (CanLII)|[2011] 1 SCR 78}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}} (8:1){{atL|2fkpf|21}} (These powers are derived "not from any statute or rule of law, but from the very nature of the court as a superior court of law" to enable "the judiciary to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective manner".)<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario|fzw43|2013 SCC 43 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 3}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}} (5:4){{atL|fzw43|18}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Adams|1frdt|1995 CanLII 56 (SCC)|[1995] 4 SCR 707}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{AtL|1frdt|28}} - in context of reconsidering a publication ban under s. 486<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Borowski v Canada (Attorney General)|1ft7d|1989 CanLII 123 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 342}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1ft7d|15}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1glp1|2004 SCC 14 (CanLII)|[2004] 1 SCR 385}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Dalke|23m2l|1981 CanLII 366 (BC SC)|59 CCC (2d) 477}}{{perBCSC|Munroe J}} at pp. 479-80, 21 C. R. (3d) 380 at pp. 383-4{{fix}}<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Bradley|j5xsp|2020 ONCA 206 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtL|j5xsp|9}} ("It is always appreciated when trial judges articulate the contested elements of the offence and give each dedicated attention, but it is not an error to fail to do so where it is apparent that the required conclusions were made. That is the case here.")

{{CanLIIRP|DeSousa|1fsb0|1992 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1992] 2 SCR 944}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}<br>

{{ibid1|DeSousa}} ("He or she is not obliged, therefore, to rule on a motion to quash for invalidity of the indictment until the end of the case after the evidence has been heard.")<br>

par exemple. {{CanLIIRP|Teskey|1rq5q|2007 CSC 25 (CanLII)|[2007] 2 RCS 267}}{{perSCC|Charron J}} - verdict{{fix}}<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v NAPE|1j0tg|2004 SCC 66 (CanLII)|[2004] 3 SCR 381}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}{{atL|1j0tg|105}}

{{CanLIIRPC|Vriend v Alberta|1fqt5|1998 CanLII 816 (SCC)|[1998] 1 SCR 493}}{{perSCC-H|Cory J}}{{atL|1fqt5|56}} ("...it is not the courts which limit the legislatures.  Rather, it is the Constitution, which must be interpreted by the courts, that limits the legislatures.")

{{CanLIIRPC|Watkins v. Olafson|1ft1x|1989 CanLII 36 (SCC)|[1989] 2 SCR 750}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}} at 583-4 (DLR) ("Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the long-established principle that in a constitutional democracy it is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, which should assume the major responsibility for law reform.")