« Changement de lieu » : différence entre les versions

{{Currency2|août|2020}}

{{removed|(3), (4) et (5)}}

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 599;

L.R. (1985), ch. 1 (4e suppl.), art. 16;

{{CanLIIR-N|Kellar|(1973), 24 CRNS 71}}{{atp|77}} (There is a "prima facie rule that an accused should be tried at the place which the offence is alleged to have been committed» )<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Singh|hsfq1|2018 ONSC 1532 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|hsfq1|150}} ( {{Tr}}« There remains a presumption that a trial will be held in the place where the offence occurred. Reasons of convenience, court efficiency, and the need for members of the community in which the crime is alleged to have occurred to see justice done all continue to support holding the trial where the indictment was filed. However, in Canada there is no right to have a trial in a particular city, village or town where the offence occurred…» )<br>

{{supra1|Jeffries}}{{perONSC|Gauthier J}}{{atL|27vng|33}} ( {{Tr}}« There is no doubt that the common law rule, that the trial of a matter should take place in the district, county, or place in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, is of ancient pedigree.» )

voir également {{CanLIIRP|Suzack|1fb1j|2000 CanLII 5630 (ON CA)|141 CCC (3d) 449}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}} ( {{Tr}}« It is a well-established principle that criminal trials should be held in the venue in which the alleged crime took place.  This principle serves both the interests of the community and those of the accused» )

Il incombe au demandeur de prouver qu’une telle ordonnance {{Tr}}« semble opportune pour les fins de la justice ».<ref>

Salhany, Canadian Criminal Procedure 6th ed., 2-470 ( {{Tr}}« As a general rule, the court is reluctant to change the place of trial since the county or district where the offence is alleged to have been committed has prima facie jurisdiction.» )<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Alward|gwh4z|1976 CanLII 1214 (NB CA)|32 CCC (2d) 416}}{{perNBCA|Limerick JA}} ( {{Tr}}« The mere fact that Mr. Wil-let died as a result of a robbery in Fredericton and that there was considerable publicity disseminated by the news media would not necessarily preclude the accused from a fair and impartial trial. There must be very strong evidence of a general prejudicial attitude in the community as a whole to justify a change of venue:...» )<br>

Le choix du lieu du procès est une {{Tr}}« question administrative » des tribunaux et il appartient au juge en chef ou à son représentant de décider.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Jeffries|27vng|2010 ONSC 772 (CanLII)|86 WCB (2d) 859}}{{perONSC|Gauthier J}}{{atL|27vng|53}} ( {{Tr}}« It may well be said that, in the context of this case, Timmins’ connection to the charge is that it is closer, and Sudbury’s connection to the charge is that it is within the same district as the place in which the offence was allegedly committed.  Following the argument to its conclusion would indicate that the Crown does hold the discretion to select the venue of trial, since both venues do have some connection to the charge. The answer to this argument brings us to the third point, which is that the selection of a venue of trial is an administrative matter, for which the authority lies with the Chief Justice of the Superior Court or her statutory designate, the Regional Senior Justice.» )<br>

{{removed|(1) et (2)}}

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 599;

L.R. (1985), ch. 1 (4e suppl.), art. 16;

;Une ordonnance permet de transférer le prisonnier