« Immunité du conjoint » : différence entre les versions

De Le carnet de droit pénal
← Modification précédenteModification suivante →
VisuelWikicode
m Remplacement de texte : « \{\{en\|([^\}\}]+)\}\} » par « en:$1 »
m Remplacement de texte : « \{\{fr\|[^\}\}]+\}\}↵ » par «  »
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
[[en:Spousal_Immunity]]
[[en:Spousal_Immunity]]
{{fr|Immunité_du_conjoint}}
{{Currency2|August|2021}}
{{Currency2|August|2021}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderTestimony}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderTestimony}}

Version du 14 juillet 2024 à 19:22

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois August 2021. (Rev. # 10938)
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.

Principes généraux

Voir également: Privilege

Spousal competency, compellability and privilege are "distinct but related concepts."[1] The purpose of all of these rules is to "protect marital harmony" and avoid having a spouse testify against another.[2]

  1. ↑ R c Al-Enzi, 2021 ONCA 81 (CanLII), par Tulloch JA, au para 185
    R c Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278 (CanLII), 125 OR (3d) 321, par Gillese JA, au para 10
  2. ↑ , ibid. at para 20
    R c Couture, 2007 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2007] 2 SCR 517, par Charron J, au para 43

Spousal Competence

Voir également: Competence and Compellability

Il existe deux exceptions à la règle de common law interdisant la compétence du conjoint. Il existe une exception de common law et une exception statutaire.[1] De plus, les conjoints sont autorisés à témoigner pour la défense.[2]

Common law rule of spousal competence

En common law, le conjoint d'un accusé est inhabile à témoigner, sauf lorsque l'accusation met en cause la personne, la liberté ou la santé du conjoint.[3]

Evidence Act rule of spousal competence

Section 4(2) of the Canada Evidence Act modifies the common law by stating that:

4
[omis (1)]
Conjoint de l’accusé

(2) Une personne n’est pas inhabile à témoigner ni non contraignable pour le poursuivant pour la seule raison qu’elle est mariée à l’accusé.


[omis (3), (4), (5) and (6)]

L.R. (1985), ch. C-5, art. 4L.R. (1985), ch. 19 (3 e suppl.), art. 172002, ch. 1, art. 1662014, ch. 25, art. 34, ch. 31, art. 272015, ch. 13, art. 52 ---


R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 4; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 17; 2002, c. 1, s. 166; 2014, c. 25, s. 34, c. 31, s. 27; 2015, c. 13, s. 52.

– CEA

Note up: 4(2)

It remains unsettled whether a witness who is competent under s. 4(2) is compellable.[4]

Common law partners

There is some suggestion that the rule of spousal privilege does not apply to those in common law relationships.[5] However, it has also been said that where there exists a "marital bond ...in substance", then the immunity will apply.[6]

Compétence pour la Défense
Accusé et conjoint

4 (1) Toute personne accusée d’infraction, ainsi que, sauf disposition contraire du présent article, le conjoint de la personne accusée, est habile à témoigner pour la défense, que la personne ainsi accusée le soit seule ou conjointement avec une autre personne.
[omis (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 4; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 17; 2002, c. 1, s. 166; 2014, c. 25, s. 34, c. 31, s. 27; 2015, c. 13, s. 52.

– CEA

Note up: 4(1)

'

No Negative Inferences

4


Défaut de témoigner

(6) Le défaut de la personne accusée, ou de son conjoint, de témoigner ne peut faire le sujet de commentaires par le juge ou par l’avocat du poursuivant.

[omis (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)]

Failure to testify

(6) The failure of the person charged, or of the wife or husband of that person, to testify shall not be made the subject of comment by the judge or by counsel for the prosecution.
R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 4; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 17; 2002, c. 1, s. 166; 2014, c. 25, s. 34, c. 31, s. 27; 2015, c. 13, s. 52.

– CEA

Note: 4(6)


Il doit y avoir quelque chose de plus qu'une « référence spontanée » au fait que l'accusé a choisi de ne pas témoigner pour mettre en œuvre l'interdiction prévue à l'art. 4(6).[7]

  1. ↑ R c Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278 (CanLII), 125 OR (3d) 321, par Gillese JA, au para 14
  2. ↑ , ibid., at para ghblp
    see also s. 4(1)
  3. ↑ R c Hawkins, 1996 CanLII 154 (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 1043, par Lamer CJ and Iacobucci J
  4. ↑ Nguyen, supra at para 15 ("whether a spouse who is a competent witness for the prosecution is also compellable at the instance of the prosecution has not been finally resolved")
    R c Salituro, 1991 CanLII 17 (SCC), par Iacobucci J at p. 676 (“the possibility that a competent spouse would be found also to be compellable is a real one”.)
  5. ↑ R c Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278 (CanLII), 125 OR (3d) 321, par Gillese JA
  6. ↑ R c Legge, 2014 ABCA 213 (CanLII), 310 CCC (3d) 404, par Paperny JA , au para 41
  7. ↑ R c Potvin, 1989 CanLII 130 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 525, par Wilson J

Spousal Privilege

Spousal privilege is a class protection of certain communications between husband and wife. It is a protection that is separate and apart from spousal competency.[1]

A spouse who is found to be competent and compellable may still invoke privilege to protect their communications.[2] The privilege belongs to the recipient spouse.[3]

This class of privilege does not exist at common law, but rather was created by way of s. 4(3) of the Evidence Act, which states:

4
[omis (1) and (2)]

Communications faites durant le mariage

(3) Nul ne peut être contraint de divulguer une communication que son conjoint lui a faite durant leur mariage.

[omis (4), (5) and (6)]


R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 4; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 17; 2002, c. 1, s. 166; 2014, c. 25, s. 34, c. 31, s. 27; 2015, c. 13, s. 52.

– CEA

Note: 4(3)

This protection in s. 4(3) is testimonial in nature and is designed to prevent compelled testimony. It does not protect the actual content of the communication.[4]

Purpose

The purpose of the protection is a) to promote marital harmony and (b) to prevent the "indignity" of having a spouse testify against their partner.[5]

Common Law Partners

Traditionally, spousal privilege had not applied to common law partners.[6]

Dissolution of Marriage

Where the relationship has dissolved, the privilege will dissolve with it.[7]

Ownership and Waiver

The privilege is owned by the potentially testify spouse and can be waived by them.[8]

Third Parties Testimony

Third parties may "testify to communications between husband and wife that were overheard, intercepted, or otherwise discovered."[9]

Wiretap

Pursuant to s. 189(6), any information collected by wiretap are subject to the same protections.

  1. ↑ See McWilliams' Canadian Criminal Evidence, 4th ed., vol. 1, looseleaf (Aurora, ON: Canada Law Book, 2010) at para 13:40.10
  2. ↑ R c Zylstra, 1995 CanLII 893 (ON CA), 99 CCC (3d) 477, par curiam
  3. ↑ R c Legge, 2014 ABCA 213 (CanLII), 310 CCC (3d) 404, par Paperny JA, au para 44 ("The privilege is that of the witness, not the accused. It must be asserted by the witness who will then bear the burden of establishing that the relationship is one with a substantive marital bond.")
  4. ↑ R c Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278 (CanLII), 125 OR (3d) 321, par Gillese JA, au para 135 ("As Couture makes clear, at para. 41, the spousal privilege established by s. 4(3) of the CEA is testimonial in nature and prevents compelled testimony. The communications themselves are not privileged.")
    R c Couture, 2007 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2007] 2 SCR 517, au para 41 ("The privilege is testimonial in nature, giving a right to withhold evidence but the communications themselves are not privileged. The privilege belongs to the spouse receiving the communication and can be waived by him or her.")
  5. ↑ R c Al-Enzi, 2021 ONCA 81 (CanLII), par Tulloch J at para 183
    R c Rendon, [1997] O.J. No. 5505 (Gen. Div.)(*pas de liens CanLII) , at para. 46
    R c Salituro, 1991 CanLII 17 (SCC), par Iacobucci J at p. 672 (SCR)
    Couture, supra, au para 43
    Nguyen, supra, au para 20
  6. ↑ Al-Enzi, supra at para 184
    R c Nero, 2016 ONCA 160 (CanLII), 334 CCC (3d) 148, par Watt JA, au para 185, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 184
    Nguyen, supra
  7. ↑ Rendon, supra, at para 46
  8. ↑ R c Couture, 2007 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2007] 2 SCR 517, par Charron J, au para 41 ("is testimonial in nature, giving a right to withhold evidence but the communications themselves are not privileged. The privilege belongs to the spouse receiving the communication and can be waived by him or her.")
  9. ↑ R c RRW (No. 2), 2010 NLTD 137 (CanLII), par Goodridge J citing McWilliams’ at para 13:40.50

Voir également

Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Immunité_du_conjoint&oldid=10938 »