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

{{Currency2|November|2022}}

{{CanLIIRPC|Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)|1qljj|2007 CSC 9 (CanLII)|[2007] 1 RCS 350}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|1qljj|53}} ( {{Tr}}« 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}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>

{{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>

{{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>

{{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>

{{CanLIIRx|Dagenais|hq0mg|2018 ONCA 63 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|McCombs JA}} (ad hoc){{atL|hq0mg|55}} ( {{Tr}}« 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|Potts|g1k0t|1982 CanLII 1751 (ON CA)|66 CCC (2d) 219}}{{perONCA-H|Thorton JA}} at p. 204<br>

{{supra1|Doyle}} ( {{Tr}}« 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|Cook|1fr1f|1997 CanLII 392 (CSC)|[1997] 1 RCS 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>

{{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}} ( {{Tr}}« 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.")

{{ibid1|DeSousa}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>

{{CanLIIRPC|Vriend v Alberta|1fqt5|1998 CanLII 816 (CSC)|[1998] 1 RCS 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 (CSC)|[1989] 2 RCS 750}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}} at 583-4 (DLR) ( {{Tr}}« 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.")