« Règles de preuve pour un expert qualifié » : différence entre les versions

{{CanLIIRP|Marquard|1frx2|1993 CanLII 37 (CSC)|[1993] 4 RCS 223}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}<br>

{{ibid1|Marquard}} ( {{Tr}}« ...in examining an expert witness on other expert opinions found in papers or books is to ask the witness if he or she knows the work.  If the answer is "no", or if the witness denies the work's authority, that is the end of the matter.  ...If the answer is "yes", and the witness acknowledges the work's authority, then the witness has confirmed it by the witness's own testimony. Parts of it may be read to the witness, and to the extent they are confirmed, they become evidence in the case.")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Shafia|gvdw4|2016 ONCA 812 (CanLII)|341 CCC (3d) 354}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtL|gvdw4|242}} ( {{Tr}}« An expert is not entitled to give statistical evidence of probabilities based on prior similar events to support a conclusion about what happened on the occasion that forms the subject-matter of charges")<br>

{{ibid1|Shafia}}{{AtL|gvdw4|243}} ( {{Tr}}« Experts may not give anecdotal evidence gathered from prior experiences in proffering their opinion about conduct on a particular occasion. The evidence lacks legal relevance and is apt to engender significant prejudice, especially when adduced to rebut a defence")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Sandham|26cvj|2009 CanLII 58982 (ONSC)|[2009] OJ No 4517 (Ont. SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Heeney J}} ( {{Tr}}« Experts are routinely permitted to have their reports in front of them as they testify, and to refer to them as they deliver their evidence. Such reports are frequently entered as exhibits.")<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Millard and Smich|gs46s|2016 ONSC 1517 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Goodman J}} (" Generally speaking, I agree that experts’ reports, per se, ought not to be filed as exhibits. The evidence is their “in-court” testimony. ")<br>

Un expert de la Couronne est autorisé à proposer d'autres théories de causalité basées sur la preuve.<ref>{{CanLIIRx|Biddersingh|j64qq|2020 ONCA 241 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Tulloch JA}}{{atL|j64qq|67}}

{{CanLIIRP|Sekhon|g35qg|2014 CSC 15 (CanLII)|[2014] 1 RCS 272}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atL|g35qg|46}} ( {{Tr}}« ...all trial judges ... have an ongoing duty to ensure that expert evidence remains within its proper scope."), {{AtL-np|g35qg|47}} ( {{Tr}}« The trial judge must both ensure that an expert stays within the proper bounds of his or her expertise and that the content of the evidence itself is properly the subject of expert evidence.")

{{CanLIIRP|Abbey|1lpcf|1982 CanLII 25 (CSC)|[1982] 2 RCS 24}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} at p. 42<Br>

{{CanLIIR|Sheriffe|gmjcq|2015 ONCA 880 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|gmjcq|106}} ( {{Tr}}« The opinion rule does not bar an expert from giving evidence of fact: Abbey 1982, at p. 42. Put another way, an expert is not confined by the opinion rule to expressing opinions only. The expert is entitled to give evidence of firsthand observations, including for example, those made during a psychiatric interview by a psychiatrist called to proffer an opinion on criminal responsibility.")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Abbey|1lpcf|1982 CanLII 25 (CSC)|[1982] 2 RCS 24}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} at p. 46<bR>

R. v. Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (CSC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, at p. 893

{{CanLIIRP|Abbey|1lpcf|1982 CanLII 25 (CSC)|[1982] 2 RCS 24}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ( {{Tr}}« Before any weight can be given to an expert's opinion, the facts upon which the opinion is based must be found to exist.")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Doodnaught|h6m5m|2017 ONCA 781 (CanLII)|358 CCC (3d) 250}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|h6m5m|124}} ( {{Tr}}« ...as with the testimony of any witness, a trial judge need not believe or make findings of fact based on the testimony of an expert witness simply because no witness is called by the opposite party or evidence adduced to contradict it")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Leinen|g01l8|2013 ABCA 283 (CanLII)|301 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perABCA|Hunt JA}} (2:1){{AtL|g01l8|24}} ( {{Tr}}« Using hypotheticals when dealing with experts is preferred (especially when there is contradictory evidence) because that is said to remove the danger of an expert overly influencing the jury’s fact-finding mission. When the hypothetical question technique is not used, careful instructions to the jury are required...")

{{CanLIIRxC|Hamilton v Bluewater Recycling Association|gvflq|2016 ONCA 805 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|gvflq|21}} ( {{Tr}}« there is no longer a general prohibition on the admission of expert evidence concerning the ultimate issue")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Solleveld|g6xv9|2014 ONCA 418 (CanLII)|311 CCC (3d) 387}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtL|g6xv9|18}} ( {{Tr}}« The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that the common law rule precluding expert evidence on the ultimate issue no longer applies in Canada")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Burns|1frvk|1994 CanLII 127 (CSC)|[1994] 1 RCS 656}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{AtL|1frvk|25}} ( {{Tr}}« While care must be taken to ensure that the judge or jury, and not the expert, makes the final decisions on all issues in the case, it has long been accepted that expert evidence on matters of fact should not be excluded simply because it suggests answers to issues which are at the core of the dispute before the court")<Br>

{{CanLIIRP|Bryan|6xxg|2003 CanLII 24337 (ON CA)|175 CCC (3d) 285}}{{perONCA|Goudge JA}}{{AtL|6xxg|16}} ( {{Tr}}« there is now no general rule precluding expert evidence on the ultimate issue")<Br>

{{CanLIIRx|Potts|hr64n|2018 ONCA 294 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|hr64n|47}} ( {{Tr}}« It is worth recalling that no general rule precludes the introduction of expert opinion evidence on the ultimate issue in a criminal trial")<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Chen|j0dx2|2019 ONSC 3088 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|j0dx2|22}} ( {{Tr}}« Given this undeniable reality in criminal trials, it is difficult to imagine circumstances where it would be necessary to declare a mistrial simply because a witness gave advance notice to the lawyer who was planning on calling them, that they were going to, in fact, give unanticipated testimony at variance with some earlier indication of what their testimony might be.")