« Droit à l'autoreprésentation » : différence entre les versions

← Modification précédente Modification suivante →

Version du 18 juillet 2024 à 20:56

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois December 2021. (Rev. # 12092)

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

Principes généraux

Voir également: Accusé devant le tribunal et Représentation au procès

La représentation par un avocat n'est pas nécessaire pour avoir un procès équitable.^[1] Un accusé peut toujours choisir de se représenter lui-même. Toutefois, les personnes qui se représentent elles-mêmes n'ont pas droit aux conseils juridiques et stratégiques du juge.^[2]

Équité du procès

Une personne qui ne bénéficie pas d'un procès équitable parce qu'elle se représente elle-même là où un avocat était disponible ne bénéficiera normalement d'aucun recours.^[3]

Dans la « grande majorité des cas », les fonctions du tribunal et du procureur de la Couronne seront suffisantes pour empêcher une fausse couche chez les accusés non représentés.^[4]

Droit à l’autoreprésentation

Constitutionnellement et par la loi en vertu de l'art. 651(2) et (3), un accusé a le droit de se représenter lui-même.^[5]

Aucun avantage particulier

Un accusé qui se représente lui-même ne doit bénéficier d'aucun « avantages particuliers » s'il choisit de se présenter sans avocat. Le droit de présenter une réponse et une défense pleine et entière, de présenter des preuves pertinentes et de présenter des arguments demeure, mais ils ne sont pas autorisés à se livrer à une production interminable de preuves non pertinentes.^[6]

Les défis de l’autoreprésentation

Divers problèmes surviennent lorsqu'un accusé se représente lui-même. Cela inclut une compréhension rudimentaire du processus, des représentations trompeuses des médias populaires, un manque de connaissance de la procédure appropriée et des règles de preuve.^[7]

Droit de contre-interrogatoire

Un accusé non représenté peut contre-interroger des témoins, sauf dans le cadre de procès portant sur une ou plusieurs accusations énumérées à l'art. 486.3. Dans ces cas, l'accusé non représenté doit demander au tribunal d'avoir un avocat pour contre-interroger les plaignants.Erreur de référence : Balise fermante </ref> manquante pour la balise <ref> Cela peut inclure :

aider à la conduite de la défense pour garantir que la défense soit efficacement mise en évidenceErreur de référence : Balise fermante </ref> manquante pour la balise <ref>

Il incombe de fournir de l’aide

Il incombe au tribunal de fournir une « lourde charge » de fournir une assistance.^[8]

Étapes nécessaires à la discrétion du tribunal en fonction de ce qui est raisonnable

Le montant de l'aide à fournir est une question laissée à la discrétion du tribunal. Le juge n'a pas besoin de devenir l'avocat de l'accusé, mais doit fournir un « niveau minimum d'assistance » pour garantir un procès équitable. <réf> R c Tran, 2001 CanLII 5555 (ON CA), [2001] OR (3d) 161, par Borins JA, au para 31
R c Moreno-Baches, 2002 CanLII 3007 (ONSC), [2002] OJ No 4480, par Juriansz J, au para 6
</ref>

La Cour ne devrait prendre que les mesures raisonnables pour aider l'accusé sans devenir l'avocat de l'accusé.^[9]

Devoir d’assurer la pleine force et l’effet de la défense

Le juge du procès doit aider l'accusé qui se représente lui-même « de telle manière que sa défense, ou toute défense que la procédure pourrait révéler, soit présentée au jury avec toute sa force et son effet. »^[10]

N’équivaut pas à l’efficacité du conseil

Le droit à un procès équitable n’exige pas que l’accusé qui se présente lui-même présente sa cause « aussi efficacement qu’un avocat compétent ».Erreur de référence : Balise fermante </ref> manquante pour la balise <ref>

Types d'aide

Mener un procès équitable avec un accusé qui se représente lui-même nécessite un « degré important d'instruction et de vigilance ». Cela nécessitera généralement que le juge explique le déroulement du procès, notamment :^[11]

la mise en accusation,
l'appel des témoins de la couronne,
le droit de contre-interroger les témoins,
le droit de s'opposer aux preuves non pertinentes
le droit de citer des témoins,
le droit et les risques associés à la décision de témoigner
le droit de présenter des arguments finaux

Le juge du procès a aidé adéquatement les accusés qui se représentaient eux-mêmes des manières suivantes :

expliquer le processus d'essai ;^[12]
identifier les problèmes pertinents ;Erreur de référence : Balise fermante </ref> manquante pour la balise <ref>

Questions liées à la Charte

Cette obligation peut inclure le soulèvement de questions liées à la « Charte » de la propre initiative du tribunal.^[13] This obligation will apply where there is uncontradicted evidence of a breach. However, it must be more than a "mere scent or intimation" of a breach.^[14]

↑ R c Rain, 1998 ABCA 315 (CanLII), 130 CCC (3d) 167, par Sulatycky JA, au p. 182 ("Representation by a lawyer is not a prerequisite for a fair trial. A person is entitled to represent himself or herself and when he or she does so, there are other means which are intended to protect the right to a fair trial, the foremost being the duty of every trial judge to ensure that all persons receive a fair trial.")
↑ R c Gendreau, 2011 ABCA 256 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 28
↑ R c Crichton, 2015 BCCA 138 (CanLII), 319 CCC (3d) 504, par Bennett JA, au para 23 ("if a person does not receive a fair trial because he or she chose to represent him or herself, even when counsel was available, then the fault lies with the accused and no remedy is available")
↑ R c Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 (CanLII), par Karakatsanis J, au para 57
↑ R c Swain, 1991 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 933, par Lamer CJ, au p. 972 ("Given that the principles of fundamental justice contemplate an accusatorial and adversarial system of criminal justice which is founded on respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings, it seems clear to me that the principles of fundamental justice must also require that an accused person have the right to control his or her own defence. ... If at any time before verdict there is a question as to the accused's ability to conduct his or her defence, the trial judge may direct that the issue of fitness to stand trial be tried before matters proceed further (see Criminal Code, s. 543, now s. 615). Thus, an accused who has not been found unfit to stand trial must be considered capable of conducting his or her own defence.")
R c Imon-Russel, 2019 ONCA 252 (CanLII), 145 OR (3d) 197, par Lauwers JA, au para 67 ("An accused also has the right to discharge counsel including counsel appointed under a Rowbotham order, but since amicus does not represent the accused person, the accused person may not discharge amicus.")
R c Chemama, 2016 ONCA 579 (CanLII), 351 OAC 381, par Brown JA, au para 58 ("An accused has an unfettered right to discharge his or her legal counsel at any time and for any reason. A court cannot interfere with this decision and cannot force counsel upon an unwilling accused")
↑ Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Review of Large and Complex Criminal Case Procedures, by The Honourable P. LeSage & Professor M. Code (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008) at 159-6
↑ R c Bain, 2014 QCCS 1625 (CanLII), par Cournoyer J, au para 24 ("Whatever the reason for his or her status, the self-represented accused is usually ill-equipped to conduct a criminal trial. He or she comes to court with a rudimentary understanding of the trial process, often influenced by misleading depictions from television shows and the movies.… His or her knowledge of substantive legal principles is limited to that derived from reading an annotated criminal code. He or she is unaware of procedure and evidentiary rules. Even once made aware of the rules, he or she is reluctant to comply with them, or has difficulty doing so. …The limitations imposed by the concept of relevance are not understood or are ignored, and the focus of the trial is often on tangential matters. Questions, whether in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, are not framed properly. Rambling, disjointed or convoluted questions are the norm. The opportunity to make submissions is viewed as an opportunity to give evidence without entering the witness box.")
↑ Ricards, supra, au para 112 ("The onus on the trial judge to assist the self-represented accused is a heavy one.")
R c Darlyn, 1946 CanLII 248 (BC CA), 88 CCC 269, par O'Halloran JA
R c Wheelton, 1992 CanLII 2816 (YK CA), CCC (3d) 476 per McEachern CJ at 488 (CCC)
↑ Richards, supra, au para 111 ("The duty owed by trial judges to self-represented litigants is circumscribed by a standard of reasonableness. The trial judge is not, and must not become, counsel for the accused. The judge is not entitled, indeed prohibited, from providing the assistance of the kind counsel would furnish when retained to do so ... A standard of reasonableness accommodates a range of options to ensure the necessary degree of assistance and eschews a single exclusive response.")
↑ R c Darlyn, 1946 CanLII 248 (BCCA), 88 CCC 269 (BCCA), par O’Halloran JA, au p. 3
R c McGibbon, (1988), 1988 CanLII 149 (ON CA), 45 CCC (3d) 334, par Griffiths JA at 347 ("Consistent with the duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial, the trial judge is required within reason to provide assistance to the unrepresented accused, to aid him in the proper conduct of his defence, and to guide him throughout the trial in such a way that his defence is brought out with its full force and effect. How far the trial judge should go in assisting the accused in such matters as the examination and cross-examination of witnesses must of necessity be a matter of discretion.")
↑ Tran, supra à 33
↑ R c Galna, 2007 ONCA 182 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 6 (ONCA positively observed that "[t]he trial judge repeatedly assisted the appellant including by identifying the relevant issues and assisting him in framing questions to elicit evidence that would be admissible and relevant. He loaned the appellant a book on trial practice and gave an overview of the trial process.")
R c Jayne, 2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII), 90 OR (3d) 37, par curiam, au para 6 ("In our view, the trial judge adequately and fairly assisted the appellant during the trial in a number of ways, including by explaining the process to the appellant, explaining how to use the preliminary inquiry transcript, ensuring that the appellant had the opportunity to speak with witnesses, assisting the appellant with framing questions and in dealing with evidentiary matters.")
↑ Richards, supra, au para 113 ("The onus extends, at least can extend, to an obligation on the trial judge to raise Charter issues on the judge’s own motion where the accused is self-represented")
↑ Richards, supra, au para 113 ("This is not to say, however, that this specific obligation becomes engaged on the mere scent or intimation of a possible Charter infringement: ... But where there is admissible uncontradicted evidence of a relevant Charter breach, the trial judge has an obligation to raise the issue, invite submissions and enter upon an inquiry into the infringement and its consequences:")

Obligations de la Couronne

Voir également: Rôle de la Couronne

Lorsqu'un accusé se représente lui-même, la Couronne devrait déployer des efforts supplémentaires pour s'assurer que la divulgation a bien été faite. Le défaut de l'accusé de recevoir la divulgation, sans que ce soit de sa faute, peut être considéré comme un manquement de la part de la Couronne.Erreur de référence : Balise fermante </ref> manquante pour la balise <ref>

[1] R c Rain, 1998 ABCA 315 (CanLII), 130 CCC (3d) 167, par Sulatycky JA, au p. 182 ("Representation by a lawyer is not a prerequisite for a fair trial. A person is entitled to represent himself or herself and when he or she does so, there are other means which are intended to protect the right to a fair trial, the foremost being the duty of every trial judge to ensure that all persons receive a fair trial.")

[2] R c Gendreau, 2011 ABCA 256 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 28

[3] R c Crichton, 2015 BCCA 138 (CanLII), 319 CCC (3d) 504, par Bennett JA, au para 23 ("if a person does not receive a fair trial because he or she chose to represent him or herself, even when counsel was available, then the fault lies with the accused and no remedy is available")

[4] R c Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 (CanLII), par Karakatsanis J, au para 57

[5] R c Swain, 1991 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 933, par Lamer CJ, au p. 972 ("Given that the principles of fundamental justice contemplate an accusatorial and adversarial system of criminal justice which is founded on respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings, it seems clear to me that the principles of fundamental justice must also require that an accused person have the right to control his or her own defence. ... If at any time before verdict there is a question as to the accused's ability to conduct his or her defence, the trial judge may direct that the issue of fitness to stand trial be tried before matters proceed further (see Criminal Code, s. 543, now s. 615). Thus, an accused who has not been found unfit to stand trial must be considered capable of conducting his or her own defence.")
R c Imon-Russel, 2019 ONCA 252 (CanLII), 145 OR (3d) 197, par Lauwers JA, au para 67 ("An accused also has the right to discharge counsel including counsel appointed under a Rowbotham order, but since amicus does not represent the accused person, the accused person may not discharge amicus.")
R c Chemama, 2016 ONCA 579 (CanLII), 351 OAC 381, par Brown JA, au para 58 ("An accused has an unfettered right to discharge his or her legal counsel at any time and for any reason. A court cannot interfere with this decision and cannot force counsel upon an unwilling accused")

[6] Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Review of Large and Complex Criminal Case Procedures, by The Honourable P. LeSage & Professor M. Code (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008) at 159-6

[7] R c Bain, 2014 QCCS 1625 (CanLII), par Cournoyer J, au para 24 ("Whatever the reason for his or her status, the self-represented accused is usually ill-equipped to conduct a criminal trial. He or she comes to court with a rudimentary understanding of the trial process, often influenced by misleading depictions from television shows and the movies.… His or her knowledge of substantive legal principles is limited to that derived from reading an annotated criminal code. He or she is unaware of procedure and evidentiary rules. Even once made aware of the rules, he or she is reluctant to comply with them, or has difficulty doing so. …The limitations imposed by the concept of relevance are not understood or are ignored, and the focus of the trial is often on tangential matters. Questions, whether in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, are not framed properly. Rambling, disjointed or convoluted questions are the norm. The opportunity to make submissions is viewed as an opportunity to give evidence without entering the witness box.")

[8] Ricards, supra, au para 112 ("The onus on the trial judge to assist the self-represented accused is a heavy one.")
R c Darlyn, 1946 CanLII 248 (BC CA), 88 CCC 269, par O'Halloran JA
R c Wheelton, 1992 CanLII 2816 (YK CA), CCC (3d) 476 per McEachern CJ at 488 (CCC)

[9] Richards, supra, au para 111 ("The duty owed by trial judges to self-represented litigants is circumscribed by a standard of reasonableness. The trial judge is not, and must not become, counsel for the accused. The judge is not entitled, indeed prohibited, from providing the assistance of the kind counsel would furnish when retained to do so ... A standard of reasonableness accommodates a range of options to ensure the necessary degree of assistance and eschews a single exclusive response.")

[10] R c Darlyn, 1946 CanLII 248 (BCCA), 88 CCC 269 (BCCA), par O’Halloran JA, au p. 3
R c McGibbon, (1988), 1988 CanLII 149 (ON CA), 45 CCC (3d) 334, par Griffiths JA at 347 ("Consistent with the duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial, the trial judge is required within reason to provide assistance to the unrepresented accused, to aid him in the proper conduct of his defence, and to guide him throughout the trial in such a way that his defence is brought out with its full force and effect. How far the trial judge should go in assisting the accused in such matters as the examination and cross-examination of witnesses must of necessity be a matter of discretion.")

[11] Tran, supra à 33

[12] R c Galna, 2007 ONCA 182 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 6 (ONCA positively observed that "[t]he trial judge repeatedly assisted the appellant including by identifying the relevant issues and assisting him in framing questions to elicit evidence that would be admissible and relevant. He loaned the appellant a book on trial practice and gave an overview of the trial process.")
R c Jayne, 2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII), 90 OR (3d) 37, par curiam, au para 6 ("In our view, the trial judge adequately and fairly assisted the appellant during the trial in a number of ways, including by explaining the process to the appellant, explaining how to use the preliminary inquiry transcript, ensuring that the appellant had the opportunity to speak with witnesses, assisting the appellant with framing questions and in dealing with evidentiary matters.")

[13] Richards, supra, au para 113 ("The onus extends, at least can extend, to an obligation on the trial judge to raise Charter issues on the judge’s own motion where the accused is self-represented")

[14] Richards, supra, au para 113 ("This is not to say, however, that this specific obligation becomes engaged on the mere scent or intimation of a possible Charter infringement: ... But where there is admissible uncontradicted evidence of a relevant Charter breach, the trial judge has an obligation to raise the issue, invite submissions and enter upon an inquiry into the infringement and its consequences:")

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

@@ Ligne 4 : / Ligne 4 : @@
 {{HeaderTrials}}
 ==Principes généraux==
-{{seealso|Accused in Court|Representation at Trial}}
+{{seealso|Accusé devant le tribunal|Représentation au procès}}
-Representation by counsel is not necessary to have a fair trial.<ref>
+La représentation par un avocat n'est pas nécessaire pour avoir un procès équitable.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Rain|5shs|1998 ABCA 315 (CanLII)|130 CCC (3d) 167}}{{perABCA|Sulatycky JA}}{{atp|182}}
 ("Representation by a lawyer is not a prerequisite for a fair trial. A person is entitled to represent himself or herself and when he or she does so, there are other means which are intended to protect the right to a fair trial, the foremost being the duty of every trial judge to ensure that all persons receive a fair trial.")</ref>
-An accused person may always choose to represent him or herself. However, individuals who represent themselves are not entitled to legal advice and strategy advice from the judge.<ref>
+Un accusé peut toujours choisir de se représenter lui-même. Toutefois, les personnes qui se représentent elles-mêmes n'ont pas droit aux conseils juridiques et stratégiques du juge.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRx|Gendreau|fn4bp|2011 ABCA 256 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|fn4bp|28}}</ref>
-; Fairness of Trial
+; Équité du procès
-A person who does not receive a fair trial due to representing him or herself where counsel was available will not normally be given any remedy.<ref>
+Une personne qui ne bénéficie pas d'un procès équitable parce qu'elle se représente elle-même là où un avocat était disponible ne bénéficiera normalement d'aucun recours.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Crichton|ggvtq|2015 BCCA 138 (CanLII)|319 CCC (3d) 504}}{{perBCCA|Bennett JA}}{{atL|ggvtq|23}} ("if a person does not receive a fair trial because he or she chose to represent him or herself, even when counsel was available, then the fault lies with the accused and no remedy is available")<br>
 </ref>
-In a "vast majority of cases," the duties of the court and Crown counsel will be sufficient to prevent a miscarriage for unrepresented accused.<ref>
+Dans la « grande majorité des cas », les fonctions du tribunal et du procureur de la Couronne seront suffisantes pour empêcher une fausse couche chez les accusés non représentés.<ref>
 {{CanLIIR|Kahsai|jzcv2|2023 SCC 20 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{atL|jzcv2|57}}
 </ref>
-; Right to Self-Representation
+; Droit à l’autoreprésentation
-Constitutionally and through statute under s. 651(2) and (3), an accused has a right to represent themselves.<ref>
+Constitutionnellement et par la loi en vertu de l'art. 651(2) et (3), un accusé a le droit de se représenter lui-même.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Swain|1fsks|1991 CanLII 104 (SCC)|[1991] 1 SCR 933}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atp|972}} ("Given that the principles of fundamental justice contemplate an accusatorial and adversarial system of criminal justice which is founded on respect for the autonomy and dignity of human beings, it seems clear to me that the principles of fundamental justice must also require that an accused person have the right to control his or her own defence.  ...  If at any time before verdict there is a question as to the accused's ability to conduct his or her defence, the trial judge may direct that the issue of fitness to stand trial be tried before matters proceed further (see Criminal Code, s. 543, now s. 615).  Thus, an accused who has not been found unfit to stand trial must be considered capable of conducting his or her own defence.")<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Imon-Russel|hzgjv|2019 ONCA 252 (CanLII)|145 OR (3d) 197}}{{perONCA|Lauwers JA}}{{atL|hzgjv|67}} ("An accused also has the right to discharge counsel including counsel appointed under a Rowbotham order, but since amicus does not represent the accused person, the accused person may not discharge amicus.")<br>
@@ Ligne 28 : / Ligne 28 : @@
 </ref>
-; No Special Advantages
+; Aucun avantage particulier
-A self-represented accused is not to be afforded any "special advantages" where they chose to go without counsel. The right to make full answer and defence, adduce relevant evidence and make argument remains, but they are not permitted to engage in endless calling of irrelevant evidence.<Ref>
+Un accusé qui se représente lui-même ne doit bénéficier d'aucun « avantages particuliers » s'il choisit de se présenter sans avocat. Le droit de présenter une réponse et une défense pleine et entière, de présenter des preuves pertinentes et de présenter des arguments demeure, mais ils ne sont pas autorisés à se livrer à une production interminable de preuves non pertinentes.<Ref>
 Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Review of Large and Complex Criminal Case Procedures, by The Honourable P. LeSage & Professor M. Code (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008) at 159-6
 </ref>
-; Challenges of Self-Representation
+; Les défis de l’autoreprésentation
-There are various problems that arise from an accused who represents himself. That includes a rudimentary understanding of the process, misleading depictions from popular media, lack of knowledge of proper procedure and rules of evidence.<ref>
+Divers problèmes surviennent lorsqu'un accusé se représente lui-même. Cela inclut une compréhension rudimentaire du processus, des représentations trompeuses des médias populaires, un manque de connaissance de la procédure appropriée et des règles de preuve.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRx|Bain|hx1mn|2014 QCCS 1625 (CanLII)}}{{PerQCCS|Cournoyer J}}{{atL|hx1mn|24}} ("Whatever the reason for his or her status, the self-represented accused is usually ill-equipped to conduct a criminal trial. He or she comes to court with a rudimentary understanding of the trial process, often influenced by misleading depictions from television shows and the movies.… His or her knowledge of substantive legal principles is limited to that derived from reading an annotated criminal code. He or she is unaware of procedure and evidentiary rules. Even once made aware of the rules, he or she is reluctant to comply with them, or has difficulty doing so. …The limitations imposed by the concept of relevance are not understood or are ignored, and the focus of the trial is often on tangential matters. Questions, whether in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, are not framed properly. Rambling, disjointed or convoluted questions are the norm. The opportunity to make submissions is viewed as an opportunity to give evidence without entering the witness box.")
 </ref>
-; Right of Cross-Examination
+; Droit de contre-interrogatoire
-A self-represented accused may cross-examine witnesses except on trials involving one or more charges listed in s. 486.3. In those cases, the self-represented accused must apply to the court to have cross-examination counsel to examine the complainants.<REf>
+Un accusé non représenté peut contre-interroger des témoins, sauf dans le cadre de procès portant sur une ou plusieurs accusations énumérées à l'art. 486.3. Dans ces cas, l'accusé non représenté doit demander au tribunal d'avoir un avocat pour contre-interroger les plaignants.<REf>
-see more [[Cross-Examinations#Cross-Examination_by_Self-Represented_Accused]]
+voir plus [[Cross-Examinations#Cross-Examination_by_Self-Represented_Accused]]
-</ref>
+</réf>
 {{reflist|2}}
-==Obligations on Court==
+==Obligations du tribunal==
-{{seealso|Role of Trial Judge}}
+{{voir aussi | Rôle du juge de première instance}}
-The trial judge has an obligation to ensure that a self-represented individual has a fair trial. This means that the judge must do anything possible to "prevent unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons."<ref>
+Le juge du procès a l’obligation de veiller à ce qu’une personne non représentée bénéficie d’un procès équitable. Cela signifie que le juge doit faire tout son possible pour « éviter un désavantage injuste envers les personnes non représentées ».<ref>
 {{CanLIIRx|Vaca|jfvvv|2021 ABCA 174 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|jfvvv|22}} ("Courts have an obligation to do everything possible to prevent unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.")
 </ref>
-This can include:
+Cela peut inclure :
-* assisting in the conduct of the defence to ensure that the defence is effectively brought out<ref>
+* aider à la conduite de la défense pour garantir que la défense soit efficacement mise en évidence<ref>
-{{CanLIIRP|Moghaddam|1mtw4|2006 BCCA 136 (CanLII)|206 CCC (3d) 497}}{{perBCCA|Levine JA}} at 35<br>
+{{CanLIIRP|Moghaddam|1mtw4|2006 BCCA 136 (CanLII)|206 CCC (3d) 497}}{{perBCCA|Levine JA}} à 35<br>
-</ref>
+</réf>
-* explaining the relevant law and its implications<ref>
+* expliquer la loi pertinente et ses implications<ref>
 {{supra1|Vaca}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-* discussing procedural options
+* discuter des options procédurales
-* providing litigants with assistance in understanding and asserting their rights and raising arguments
+* aider les justiciables à comprendre, faire valoir leurs droits et argumenter
-When the accused is self-represented, the court has obligations to ensure that they do not favour one side over the other and also take steps to ensure that the trial is not unfair to a point where there is a miscarriage of justice.<ref>
+Lorsque l'accusé est lui-même représenté, le tribunal a l'obligation de veiller à ce qu'il ne favorise pas une partie par rapport à l'autre et également de prendre des mesures pour garantir que le procès ne soit pas inéquitable au point de provoquer une erreur judiciaire.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Varcoe|1qwxw|2007 ONCA 194 (CanLII)|219 CCC (3d) 397}}{{perONCA|MacFarland JA}}{{atL|1qwxw|26}} (“It is a fine line that trial judges are required to walk in dealing with unrepresented and self-represented accused persons. Trial judges are to avoid any conduct that may be seen to favour one side over the other and to maintain their independence as between the two. This obligation must be balanced against the need to take steps to ensure that no miscarriage of justice occurs as a result of an unrepresented accused”)<Br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Jayne|1wgkr|2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII)|90 OR (3d) 37}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
@@ Ligne 70 : / Ligne 70 : @@
 </ref>
-; Onus to Provide Assistance
+; Il incombe de fournir de l’aide
-There is a "heavy onus" on the court to provides assistance.<ref>
+Il incombe au tribunal de fournir une « lourde charge » de fournir une assistance.<ref>
 {{supra1|Ricards}}{{atL|h3xwx|112}} ("The onus on the trial judge to assist the self-represented accused is a heavy one.")<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Darlyn|gdfm3|1946 CanLII 248 (BC CA)|88 CCC 269}}{{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}<Br>
@@ Ligne 77 : / Ligne 77 : @@
 </ref>
-; Necessary Steps at Discretion of Court Based on What is Reasonable
+; Étapes nécessaires à la discrétion du tribunal en fonction de ce qui est raisonnable
-The amount of assistance to provide is a matter of the court's discretion. The judge does not need to become the accused's advocate, but must provide a "minimum level of assistance" to ensure a fair trial.
+Le montant de l'aide à fournir est une question laissée à la discrétion du tribunal. Le juge n'a pas besoin de devenir l'avocat de l'accusé, mais doit fournir un « niveau minimum d'assistance » pour garantir un procès équitable.
-<ref>
+<réf>
 {{CanLIIRP|Tran|1ffx1|2001 CanLII 5555 (ON CA)|[2001] OR (3d) 161}}{{perONCA|Borins JA}}{{atL|1ffx1|31}}<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Moreno-Baches|1cl3d|2002 CanLII 3007 (ONSC)|[2002] OJ No 4480}}{{perONCA|Juriansz J}}{{atL|1cl3d|6}}<br>
 </ref>
-The Court should only take steps that would be reasonable to assist the accused without becoming counsel for the accused.<ref>
+La Cour ne devrait prendre que les mesures raisonnables pour aider l'accusé sans devenir l'avocat de l'accusé.<ref>
 {{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|111}} ("The duty owed by trial judges to self-represented litigants is circumscribed by a standard of reasonableness. The trial judge is not, and must not become, counsel for the accused. The judge is not entitled, indeed prohibited, from providing the assistance of the kind counsel would furnish when retained to do so ... A standard of reasonableness accommodates a range of options to ensure the necessary degree of assistance and eschews a single exclusive response.")
 </ref>
-; Duty to Ensure Full Force and Effect of Defence
+; Devoir d’assurer la pleine force et l’effet de la défense
-The trial judge must help the self-represented accused "in such a way that his defence, or any defence the proceedings may disclose, is brought out to the jury with its full force and effect.."<ref>
+Le juge du procès doit aider l'accusé qui se représente lui-même « de telle manière que sa défense, ou toute défense que la procédure pourrait révéler, soit présentée au jury avec toute sa force et son effet. »<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Darlyn|gdfm3|1946 CanLII 248 (BCCA)|88 CCC 269 (BCCA)}}{{perBCCA-H|O’Halloran JA}}{{atp|3}}<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|McGibbon|1npn8| (1988), 1988 CanLII 149 (ON CA)|45 CCC (3d) 334}}{{perONCA-H|Griffiths JA}} at 347 ("Consistent with the duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial, the trial judge is required within reason to provide assistance to the unrepresented accused, to aid him in the proper conduct of his defence, and to guide him throughout the trial in such a way that his defence is brought out with its full force and effect. How far the trial judge should go in assisting the accused in such matters as the examination and cross-examination of witnesses must of necessity be a matter of discretion.")<br>
 </ref>
-; Not Equivalent to Effectiveness of Counsel
+; N’équivaut pas à l’efficacité du conseil
-The right to a fair trial does not require the self-presented accused to present their case "as effectively as a competent lawyer."<ref>
+Le droit à un procès équitable n’exige pas que l’accusé qui se présente lui-même présente sa cause « aussi efficacement qu’un avocat compétent ».<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Neidig|hwqx0|2018 BCCA 485 (CanLII)|425 CRR (2d) 262}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}{{atL|hwqx0|93}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-; Duty to Ensure Comprehension
+; Devoir d’assurer la compréhension
-A judge has a duty to ensure that the accused has a "functional understanding of proper procedures and the proper manner of presenting a case."<ref>
+Un juge a le devoir de s'assurer que l'accusé a une « compréhension fonctionnelle des procédures appropriées et de la manière appropriée de présenter une affaire ».<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Morillo|hsp9s|2018 ONCA 582 (CanLII)|362 CCC (3d) 23}}{{perONCA|Paciocco JA}}(chambers)<Br>
 </ref>
-; Types of Assistance
+; Types d'aide
-Conducting a fair trial with a self-represented accused requires a "significant degree of instruction and vigilance." This will generally require that the judge explain the course which the trial is to take, including:<ref>
+Mener un procès équitable avec un accusé qui se représente lui-même nécessite un « degré important d'instruction et de vigilance ». Cela nécessitera généralement que le juge explique le déroulement du procès, notamment :<ref>
-{{supra1|Tran}} at 33</ref>
+{{supra1|Tran}} à 33</ref>
-# the arraignment,
+# la mise en accusation,
-# the calling of crown witnesses,
+# l'appel des témoins de la couronne,
-# the right to cross-examine witnesses,
+# le droit de contre-interroger les témoins,
-# the right to object to irrelevant evidence
+# le droit de s'opposer aux preuves non pertinentes
-# the right to call witnesses,
+# le droit de citer des témoins,
-# the right and associated risks with the decision to testify
+# le droit et les risques associés à la décision de témoigner
-# the right to make closing arguments
+# le droit de présenter des arguments finaux
-The trial judge has properly assisted self-represented accused in the following manners:
+Le juge du procès a aidé adéquatement les accusés qui se représentaient eux-mêmes des manières suivantes :
-* explain the trial process;<ref>
+* expliquer le processus d'essai ;<ref>
 {{CanLIIRx|Galna|1qv1x|2007 ONCA 182 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1qv1x|6}} (ONCA positively observed that "[t]he trial judge repeatedly assisted the appellant including by identifying the relevant issues and assisting him in framing questions to elicit evidence that would be admissible and relevant.  He loaned the appellant a book on trial practice and gave an overview of the trial process.")<br>
 {{CanLIIRP|Jayne|1wgkr|2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII)|90 OR (3d) 37}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1wgkr|6}} ("In our view, the trial judge adequately and fairly assisted the appellant during the trial in a number of ways, including by explaining the process to the appellant, explaining how to use the preliminary inquiry transcript, ensuring that the appellant had the opportunity to speak with witnesses, assisting the appellant with framing questions and in dealing with evidentiary matters.")
 </ref>
-* identify relevant issues;<ref>
+* identifier les problèmes pertinents ;<ref>
 {{ibid1|Galna}}{{atL|1qv1x|6}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-* explain how to properly phrase questions for a witness;<ref>
+* expliquer comment formuler correctement les questions d'un témoin ;<ref>
 {{supra1|Galna}}{{atL|1qv1x|6}}<br>
 {{supra1|Jayne}}{{atL|1wgkr|6}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-* explain the necessary steps when using exhibits or transcripts;<ref>
+* expliquer les étapes nécessaires lors de l'utilisation de pièces à conviction ou de transcriptions ;<ref>
 {{supra1|Jayne}}{{atL|1wgkr|6}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-* offering materials on trial practice;<Ref>
+* proposer du matériel sur la pratique d'essai ;<Ref>
 {{ibid1|Galna}}{{atL|1qv1x|6}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-* exhibiting tolerance to their behaviour due to lack of understanding;
+* faire preuve de tolérance à l'égard de leur comportement en raison d'un manque de compréhension ;
-* ensuring that the accused had an opportunity to meet and speak with witnesses.<ref>
+* s'assurer que l'accusé a eu l'occasion de rencontrer et de parler avec des témoins.<ref>
 {{supra1|Jayne}}{{atL|1wgkr|6}}
 </ref>
-; Charter Issues
+; Questions liées à la Charte
-This obligation may include raising ''Charter'' issues on the court's own motion.<ref>
+Cette obligation peut inclure le soulèvement de questions liées à la « Charte » de la propre initiative du tribunal.<ref>
 {{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|113}} ("The onus extends, at least can extend, to an obligation on the trial judge to raise Charter issues on the judge’s own motion where the accused is self-represented")
 </ref>
@@ Ligne 148 : / Ligne 148 : @@
 {{reflist|2}}
-==Obligations of Crown==
+==Obligations de la Couronne==
-{{seealso|Role of the Crown}}
+{{voir aussi | Rôle de la Couronne}}
-Where an accused is self-represented the Crown should make additional efforts to ensure that disclosure has been made. The accused's failure to receive disclosure, through no fault of their own, may be considered a failure on the part of Crown.<ref>
+Lorsqu'un accusé se représente lui-même, la Couronne devrait déployer des efforts supplémentaires pour s'assurer que la divulgation a bien été faite. Le défaut de l'accusé de recevoir la divulgation, sans que ce soit de sa faute, peut être considéré comme un manquement de la part de la Couronne.<ref>
 {{CanLIIRP|Tossounian|h50vj|2017 ONCA 618 (CanLII)|254 CCC (3d) 365}}{{perONCA|Juriansz JA}}
-</ref>
+</réf>
-In certain circumstances, there will be an obligation upon the Crown to at the least alert the judge or accused of a possible Charter violation.<ref>
+Dans certaines circonstances, la Couronne aura l'obligation d'alerter au moins le juge ou l'accusé d'une éventuelle violation de la Charte.<ref>
-e.g. {{CanLIIR-N|Breton|2018 ONCA 753}}{{at|14}}
+par exemple. {{CanLIIR-N|Breton|2018 ONCA 753}}{{à|14}}
 </ref>
 {{reflist|2}}