« Interrogatoires principaux » : différence entre les versions

Dernière version du 4 novembre 2024 à 13:07

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois janvier 2016. (Rev. # 31083)

n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

< Procédure et pratique
< Procés

Principe général

Voir également: Interrogatoires et Contre-interrogatoires

L'interrogatoire principal ou l'interrogatoire direct est une procédure dans laquelle la partie qui appelle un témoin à témoigner lui pose des questions pour obtenir des éléments de preuve.

Règle contre les questions suggestives

Une question suggestive est une question qui suggère la réponse souhaitée.^[1] En général, l'avocat ne peut pas poser de questions suggestives au témoin qu'il cite.^[2] Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?» ) or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?» ).^[3]

Justification

Les raisons pour lesquelles les questions suggestives ne sont pas autorisées sont les suivantes :^[4]

partialité du témoin en faveur de la partie qui appelle
le danger que la partie qui appelle ne fournisse que des informations utiles sans aucun contrepoids qui pourrait provenir de la version du témoin lui-même^[5]
la possibilité que le témoin soit simplement d'accord avec tout ce qui lui est présenté par la partie qui l'a convoqué.^[6]
un témoin nerveux, peu alerte, confus ou facilement persuadé peut accepter la suggestion d’une question suggestive sans réfléchir.^[7]

La question suggestive peut [TRADUCTION] « imposer la volonté de l’interrogateur au témoin de manière à obtenir des informations inexactes, en l’absence d’une intention de le faire de la part de l’avocat ou du témoin »^[8]

L'importance de ne pas diriger dépend des circonstances. La règle doit être souple, au moins pour des raisons de commodité.^[9]

Pouvoir discrétionnaire dans l'« intérêt de la justice »

Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser toute question suggestive lorsque cela est [TRADUCTION] « nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice ».^[10]

Exception

Il est généralement permis de prendre la parole sur un certain nombre de questions :

des questions introductives ou non controversées telles que le nom, l'adresse, le poste, etc.^[11]
dans le but d'identifier des personnes ou des choses^[12]
lorsque « il est nécessaire d'orienter le témoin vers une question ou un domaine d'enquête particulier ».^[13]
de permettre à un témoin de contredire un autre témoin au sujet de déclarations faites par ce dernier^[14]
lorsque le témoin est déclaré hostile ;
lorsque le témoin est déficient en raison de son âge, de son éducation, de sa langue, de ses capacités mentales^[15]
lorsqu'il s'agit d'une affaire compliquée, à la discrétion du juge^[16]

Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser une inférence lorsque cela est dans l'intérêt de la justice. ^[17]

Conséquence des questions suggestives

La réponse à une question suggestive n'est pas nécessairement irrecevable, mais elle aura très peu ou pas de poids, en particulier sur des questions critiques.^[18]

Le poids accordé à une réponse à une question suggestive dépendra du [TRADUCTION] « caractère suggestif de la question, du sujet et des autres éléments de preuve présentés à la Cour ». ^[19] Il arrive souvent que le caractère inapproprié de la question, et donc le poids accordé à la réponse, soient évalués à la lumière de l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire, après le témoignage ultérieur du témoin.^[20]

Objections

Les questions suggestives ne doivent pas être contestées, à moins que la question ne soit [TRADUCTION] « cruciale » pour l'affaire.^[21]

L'utilisation de questions suggestives sera davantage tolérée lorsqu'elle aura pour but un [TRADUCTION] « interrogatoire contrôlé » plutôt que lorsqu'il s'agira d'un [TRADUCTION] « contre-interrogatoire visant à discréditer ou à contredire » le témoin.^[22]

↑ R c Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079, 153 CCC (3d) 225, par Charron JA (3:0), au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « A leading question is one that suggests the answer.» )
↑ , ibid., au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.» )
cf. R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, par Lee J, au para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight ( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)
↑ Rose, supra, au para 9
R c W(EM), 2011 CSC 31 (CanLII), [2011] 2 RCS 542, par McLachlin CJ (6:1), au para 9
Nicolls v Kemp (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.» )
↑ Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396(*pas de liens CanLII)
↑ , ibid.
Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274(*pas de liens CanLII)
Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33
R c Clancey, [1992] O.J. No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)(*pas de liens CanLII) , par Watt J (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
↑ Maves
↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10
↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... » )
↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « ...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...» )
↑ Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.» ) Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA), supra, at 219
R c Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), par Hamilton JA, au para 23
R c Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, par curiam (3:0), au para 9
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189
Rose, supra, au para 9
↑ Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.), au p. 414, États de common law
↑ , ibid., au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.» )
Muise, supra, au para 23
↑ Delisle, supra
↑ Delisle, supra
↑ Delisle, supra.
↑ Reference Re R c Coffin, 1956 CanLII 94 (CSC), [1956] RCS 191, p. 22
Muise, supra, au para 23
↑ Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA) (UK)
R c Williams, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)(*pas de liens CanLII) see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)
R c Nicholson, 1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII), 129 CCC (3d) 198, par curiam (3:0)
R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, par Lee J, au para 45( [TRADUCTION] « ...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. » )
R c Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII), 547 AR 260, par Allen J, aux paras 41 à 57
R c Parkes, [2005] OJ No 937(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 44
R c Cawthorne, 2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII), 7 CMAR 993, per Zinn JA, au para 62 ( [TRADUCTION] « Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced» )
S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16
↑ R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.), par Lee J, au para 45
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, aux pp. 18 - 16
↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, aux pp. 18 - 16 (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)
↑ FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed., au p. 42
Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed, au p. 114
↑ R c Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), par Hamilton JA (3:0), au para 27
R c Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, par curiam (3:0), au para 12

[1] R c Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079, 153 CCC (3d) 225, par Charron JA (3:0), au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « A leading question is one that suggests the answer.» )

[2] , ibid., au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.» )
cf. R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, par Lee J, au para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight ( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)

[3] Rose, supra, au para 9
R c W(EM), 2011 CSC 31 (CanLII), [2011] 2 RCS 542, par McLachlin CJ (6:1), au para 9
Nicolls v Kemp (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)

[4] Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.» )

[5] Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA), 6 Alta LR 396(*pas de liens CanLII)

[6] , ibid.
Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274(*pas de liens CanLII)
Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33
R c Clancey, [1992] O.J. No 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)(*pas de liens CanLII) , par Watt J (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)

[7] Maves

[8] MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10

[9] Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... » )

[10] Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « ...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...» )

[11] Rose, supra, au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.» ) Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA), supra, at 219
R c Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), par Hamilton JA, au para 23
R c Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, par curiam (3:0), au para 9
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189
Rose, supra, au para 9

[12] Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.), au p. 414, États de common law

[13] , ibid., au para 9 ( [TRADUCTION] « Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.» )
Muise, supra, au para 23

[14] Delisle, supra

[15] Delisle, supra

[16] Delisle, supra.

[17] Reference Re R c Coffin, 1956 CanLII 94 (CSC), [1956] RCS 191, p. 22
Muise, supra, au para 23

[18] Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA) (UK)
R c Williams, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)(*pas de liens CanLII) see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)
R c Nicholson, 1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII), 129 CCC (3d) 198, par curiam (3:0)
R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313, par Lee J, au para 45( [TRADUCTION] « ...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. » )
R c Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII), 547 AR 260, par Allen J, aux paras 41 à 57
R c Parkes, [2005] OJ No 937(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 44
R c Cawthorne, 2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII), 7 CMAR 993, per Zinn JA, au para 62 ( [TRADUCTION] « Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced» )
S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16

[19] R c Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.), par Lee J, au para 45
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, aux pp. 18 - 16

[20] MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition, aux pp. 18 - 16 (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)

[21] FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed., au p. 42
Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed, au p. 114

[22] R c Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), par Hamilton JA (3:0), au para 27
R c Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 9, par curiam (3:0), au para 12

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

@@ Ligne 8 : / Ligne 8 : @@
 ==Règle contre les questions suggestives==
 Une question suggestive est une question qui suggère la réponse souhaitée.<Ref>
-{{CanLIIRP|Rose|1fbr4|2001 CanLII 24079|153 CCC (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0){{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("A leading question is one that suggests the answer.")
+{{CanLIIRP|Rose|1fbr4|2001 CanLII 24079|153 CCC (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0){{atL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« A leading question is one that suggests the answer.» )
 </ref>
 En général, l'avocat ne peut pas poser de questions suggestives au témoin qu'il cite.<ref>
-{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.")<br>
+{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« It is trite law that the party who calls a witness is generally not permitted to ask the witness leading questions.» )<br>
 cf. {{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}} suggests that it only goes to weight
 ( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)</ref>
-Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>
+Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?» ) or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?» ).<ref>
 {{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}}<br>
-{{CanLIIRP|W(EM)|flwbv|2011 CSC 31 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 RCS 542}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}} (6:1){{atL|flwbv|9}}<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|W(EM)|flwbt|2011 CSC 31 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 RCS 542}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}} (6:1){{atL|flwbt|9}}<br>
 ''Nicolls v Kemp'' (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
 </ref>
@@ Ligne 22 : / Ligne 22 : @@
 ; Justification
 Les raisons pour lesquelles les questions suggestives ne sont pas autorisées sont les suivantes :<ref>
-{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.")</ref>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« The reason for the rule arises from a concern that the witness, who in many instances favours the party who calls him or her, will readily agree to the suggestions put in the form of a question rather than give his or her own answers to the questions.» )</ref>
 *partialité du témoin en faveur de la partie qui appelle
 *le danger que la partie qui appelle ne fournisse que des informations utiles sans aucun contrepoids qui pourrait provenir de la version du témoin lui-même<ref>
@@ Ligne 32 : / Ligne 32 : @@
 </ref>
 * un témoin nerveux, peu alerte, confus ou facilement persuadé peut accepter la suggestion d’une question suggestive sans réfléchir.<ref>Maves</ref>
-La question suggestive peut « imposer la volonté de l’interrogateur au témoin de manière à obtenir des informations inexactes, en l’absence d’une intention de le faire de la part de l’avocat ou du témoin »<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>
+La question suggestive peut {{Tr}}« imposer la volonté de l’interrogateur au témoin de manière à obtenir des informations inexactes, en l’absence d’une intention de le faire de la part de l’avocat ou du témoin »<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>
 L'importance de ne pas diriger dépend des circonstances. La règle doit être souple, au moins pour des raisons de commodité.<ref>
-{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... ")</ref>
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« Of course, the degree of concern that may arise from the use of leading questions will depend on the particular circumstances and the rule is applied with some flexibility. For example, leading questions are routinely asked to elicit a witness' evidence on preliminary and non-contentious matters. This practice is adopted for the sake of expediency and generally gives rise to no concern. ... » )</ref>
 ; Pouvoir discrétionnaire dans l'« intérêt de la justice »
-Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser toute question suggestive lorsque cela est « nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice ».<ref>
+Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser toute question suggestive lorsque cela est {{Tr}}« nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice ».<ref>
-{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...")
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« ...the trial judge has a general discretion to allow leading questions whenever it is considered necessary in the interests of justice...» )
 </ref>
@@ Ligne 45 : / Ligne 45 : @@
 Il est généralement permis de prendre la parole sur un certain nombre de questions :
 * des questions introductives ou non controversées telles que le nom, l'adresse, le poste, etc.<ref>
-{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")
+{{supra1|Rose}}{{AtL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.» )
 {{supra1|Maves v Grand Truck Railways(ABCA)}}, at 219 <br>
 {{CanLIIRx|Muise|fzhtg|2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
@@ Ligne 53 : / Ligne 53 : @@
 * dans le but d'identifier des personnes ou des choses<ref>Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.){{atp|414}}, États de common law</ref>
 * lorsque « il est nécessaire d'orienter le témoin vers une question ou un domaine d'enquête particulier ».<ref>
-{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ("Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.")<br>
+{{ibid1|Rose}}{{atL|1fbr4|9}} ( {{Tr}}« Leading questions are also permitted to the extent that they are necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry.» )<br>
 {{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
 </ref>
@@ Ligne 65 : / Ligne 65 : @@
 Un juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'autoriser une inférence lorsque cela est dans l'intérêt de la justice.
-<ref>Reference Re {{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (SCC)|[1956] RCS 191}}{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
+<ref>Reference Re {{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (CSC)|[1956] RCS 191}}{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
 {{supra1|Muise}}{{atL|fzhtg|23}}<br>
 </ref>
@@ Ligne 74 : / Ligne 74 : @@
 {{CanLIIR-N|Williams|, 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Nicholson|5skh|1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII)|129 CCC (3d) 198}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
-{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}( {{Tr}}« ...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. » )<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Gordon-Brietzke|fsfcr|2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII)|547 AR 260}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}{{atsL|fsfcr|41| à 57}}<br>
 {{CanLIIR-N|Parkes|, [2005] OJ No 937}}{{at-|44}}<br>
-{{CanLIIRP|Cawthorne|ghgkg|2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII)|7 CMAR 993}}, ''per'' Zinn JA{{atL|ghgkg|62}} ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Cawthorne|ghgkg|2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII)|7 CMAR 993}}, ''per'' Zinn JA{{atL|ghgkg|62}} ( {{Tr}}« Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced» )<br>
 S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16<br>
 </ref>
-Le poids accordé à une réponse à une question suggestive dépendra du « caractère suggestif de la question, du sujet et des autres éléments de preuve présentés à la Cour ».
+Le poids accordé à une réponse à une question suggestive dépendra du {{Tr}}« caractère suggestif de la question, du sujet et des autres éléments de preuve présentés à la Cour ».
 <ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Bhardwaj|20bk4|2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII)|456 AR 313 (Alta. Q.B.)}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|20bk4|45}}<br>
@@ Ligne 90 : / Ligne 90 : @@
 ; Objections
-Les questions suggestives ne doivent pas être contestées, à moins que la question ne soit « cruciale » pour l'affaire.<ref>
+Les questions suggestives ne doivent pas être contestées, à moins que la question ne soit {{Tr}}« cruciale » pour l'affaire.<ref>
 FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed.{{atp|42}}<br>
 Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed{{atp|114}}<br>
 </ref>
-L'utilisation de questions suggestives sera davantage tolérée lorsqu'elle aura pour but un « interrogatoire contrôlé » plutôt que lorsqu'il s'agira d'un « contre-interrogatoire visant à discréditer ou à contredire » le témoin.<ref>
+L'utilisation de questions suggestives sera davantage tolérée lorsqu'elle aura pour but un {{Tr}}« interrogatoire contrôlé » plutôt que lorsqu'il s'agira d'un {{Tr}}« contre-interrogatoire visant à discréditer ou à contredire » le témoin.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRx|Muise|fzhtg|2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0){{atL|fzhtg|27}}<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Situ|1lgqh|2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII)|200 CCC (3d) 9}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|1lgqh|12}}<br>