Demandes de Charte

Fr

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois December 2022. (Rev. # 14318)

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
• < Pré-procès et procès

Principes généraux

Une requête fondée sur la Charte est une requête de la défense alléguant une violation d'une disposition du Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.

Qui peut soulever une requête

Lorsque la défense n'a pas présenté de requête pour contester les motifs raisonnables qui sous-tendent l'action policière, comme une demande d'alcootest, la Couronne n'est pas tenue de présenter des éléments de preuve qui sous-tendent l'autorisation qui a été exécutée.

Dans certaines circonstances, les juges de première instance peuvent avoir le devoir de soulever une question relative à la Charte au nom de l'accusé, en particulier lorsqu'il se représente lui-même. Toutefois, l'ingérence du juge en soulevant une question relative à la Charte contre l'intention de l'avocat peut équivaloir à une crainte raisonnable de partialité.

Tribunal compétent

Une demande fondée sur la Charte doit être entendue par un « tribunal compétent ». Il s'agit d'un tribunal qui a compétence sur l'objet, la personne et le recours. Il s'agira généralement du juge de première instance. Toutefois, elle n'inclura pas un juge d'enquête préliminaire. Une cour supérieure a « une compétence constante, complète et concurrente avec le tribunal de première instance pour les demandes présentées en vertu du par. 24(1) de la Charte ».

Compétence territoriale

La Charte ne s'applique pas aux autorités canadiennes situées à l'extérieur du Canada, sauf lorsque :

1. la juridiction étrangère consent à son application; ou
2. the do cut of the Canadian authorities violates international human rights obligations.

Standard of Appellate Review

A finding of a Charter violation deserves deference absent a palpable and overriding error.

The interpretation of the scope of a right is a question of law and is reviewable without reference.

The standard of review on appeal for constitutional questions is on the standard of correctness.

A decision in relation to an alleged Charter breach is reviewable on a standard that varies depending on the nature of the appeal:

1. "When examining a judge's decision on whether a Charter breach occurred, the appellate court will review the decision to ensure that the correct legal principles were stated and that there was no misdirection in their application. This raises questions of law and the standard of review is correctness."
2. "The appellate court will then review the evidentiary foundation which forms the basis for the judge's decision to see whether there was an error. On this part of the review, the judge's decision is entitled to more deference and, absent palpable and overriding error, the facts as found by the judge should not be disturbed"
3. "The appellate court will also examine the application of the legal principles to the facts of the case to see if the facts, as found by the judge, satisfy the correct legal test. In the criminal law context, this is a question of law and the standard of review is correctness"
4. "The decision on whether to exclude under s. 24(2) of the Charter is an admissibility of evidence issue which is a question of law. However, because this determination requires the judge to exercise some discretion, "considerable deference" is owed to the judge's s. 24(2) assessment when the appropriate factors have been considered."

Procedure

La charge de la preuve incombe à la partie qui présente la requête. La partie adverse doit être avisée de la requête et avoir la possibilité de contester la preuve ainsi que de présenter des éléments de preuve.

La réparation prévue par la Charte doit découler d'une requête, elle n'est pas automatique. La requête doit être fondée sur des éléments de preuve présentés au tribunal.

La Couronne qui répond a le droit d'attendre que la preuve du demandeur soit terminée avant de décider de la manière dont elle souhaite répondre à la requête, y compris en appelant des témoins en contre-argumentation.

Preuve

Dans certains cas, le juge peut demander à la défense de résumer la preuve qu'elle prévoit présenter. Si la preuve ne révèle pas de fondement pour lequel elle peut être exclue, le juge peut refuser de permettre à la défense de participer à un voir-dire sur la question.

La preuve peut prendre la forme d'un affidavit et peut, dans certains cas, contenir des ouï-dire sur ce que l'accusé va témoigner au procès.

Concession de droit

La décision du procureur de la Couronne de concéder un point de droit ne lie pas le tribunal à son contenu ou à son effet juridique.

La Cour suprême « a traditionnellement une vision négative des concessions dans les affaires constitutionnelles, compte tenu de leurs vastes répercussions potentielles pour les personnes ou les gouvernements qui ne sont pas parties à l’affaire en question ».

Summary Dismissals

• Summary Dismissal Applications

Charge et norme de preuve

La charge de prouver la violation d'un droit constitutionnel, à quelques exceptions près, incombe au demandeur. Cela exige que le demandeur assume la « charge initiale de présenter des preuves ».

Lorsque la charge incombe au demandeur

En général, la charge incombe au demandeur en cas de violation :

• du Droit au silence
• des Perquisitions avec mandat et
• du Droit à l'assistance d'un avocat.

Lorsque la charge incombe à la Couronne

Les violations relatives à une perquisition et une saisie sans mandat font peser la charge sur la Couronne. Toutefois, la défense doit d'abord établir qu'il y a eu une perquisition et qu'elle était sans mandat.

La charge de la preuve en cas de contestation du caractère volontaire d'une déclaration incombe à la Couronne.

En outre, lorsque le délai maximal pour mener une affaire à terme a été dépassé, la charge de la preuve incombe à la Couronne de prouver que l'al. 11b) de la Charte n'a pas été violé.

Norme de preuve

La preuve doit être « suffisamment claire, convaincante et convaincante » pour établir la violation selon la prépondérance des probabilités.

Si la preuve n'est pas suffisamment convaincante d'une façon ou d'une autre, le tribunal doit conclure qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de la Charte.

Les tribunaux doivent garder à l'esprit que « la Charte doit recevoir une application contextuelle. La portée d'un droit ou d'une liberté particulière garantie par la Charte peut varier selon les circonstances. »

Standing

A person must have personal Charter-protected rights to make a claim of a violation under the Charter and seek a remedy under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

There is no rule of automatic standing in challenging a search. Only a party who can establish a personal right to privacy (i.e. a "reasonable expectation of privacy") can challenge a search.

In section 8 Charter applications, standing exists where it has been established that the accused had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy to the target of the search.

Where the accused asserts a s. 8 privacy right, they cannot, in the defence evidence assert facts that contradict this right. For example, a privacy right over a residence requires that the accused acknowledge living there.

Burden and Standard of Proof

The onus is upon the applicant to prove standing on a balance of probabilities.

Absolution of Burden by Relying on Allegations as True

An accused need not tender evidence to establish standing to enforce a Charter right. The court may assume as true any fact alleged by the Crown instead of tendering defence evidence. This permits an accused to invoke a s. 8 Charter right while maintaining their denial of identity as the culprit.

Enforcing Rights of Another Person

An accused is not entitled to rely on a possible violation of the Charter rights of a co-accused.

For example, where the accused is a passenger of the vehicle, the accused will not have standing to bring a Charter application as there is no privacy interest as a passenger, at least so diminished as to not have any Charter protection.

Young Person Under 12 Years of Age

A child under the age of 12 cannot be charged with an offence and so they do not have standing to make any claim for a breach of s. 8 Charter rights.

Crown Standing to Respond to an Application

Where there has been a prior ruling of unconstitutionality within the province that was not appealed by the Crown does not estop the Crown from making submissions against a subsequent application on a new proceeding.

State Agent

The impugned conduct that implicates the Charter must be that of a state agent. This will generally be of concern for Charter rights such as:

• the right to silence;
• voluntariness of a statement made to a person in authority;
• the right against search and seizure; or
• detention, including through citizen's arrest or private security

Application of the Charter

Section 32 of the Charter provides that:

32 (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

– CCRF

---

Incriminating evidence collected by private persons "is routinely admitted without Charter scrutiny."

Independent actions of an informer to collect information from an offender in order to deliver the information to police is not an agent.

Notice

An Accused must prove a Charter violation through conducting a voir dire. Notice must give notice of a Charter application or else the application can be rejected without hearing evidence.

There is a duty upon defence to raise any Charter issues before trial.

A threshold examination must be made to determine if on a balance of probabilities that the accused may be entitled to a Charter remedy and that the right was asserted as reasonably early as possible. Where there is no timely notice, the Court may refuse an application.

Where the court rules have not been complied with, the court “has wide discretion in respect of procedure to facilitate a fair and expeditious determination of Charter issues” Thus, even a late request for a Charter application can still be heard by the court.

Since the crown may not know the whole charter evidence before the motion, they are entitled to call evidence after hearing from the defence.

The defence cannot object to the admission of evidence on the basis of a Charter violation where it is first raised in closing.

Prior to trial, the court may make inquiries into what Charter issues to be presented at trial.

Rules of Court

Many provinces have rules that govern the notice requirements of Charter applications.

Under the Ontario Rules of Criminal Proceedings, the trial judge has discretion in whether to penalize non-compliance by refusing to permit the application. The judge must review several factors in the process including:

• preference to have applications heard
• prejudice to the opposite party
• the efficient management of the courts,
• the fair and orderly conduct of the trial and
• the particularization of the Notice.

Absence of Notice

The court may refuse to hear a Charter application where no notice is given.

The right to make full answer and defence does not include right to trial by ambush.

Failure to comply with rules of motion is not always fatal to the motion.

Sufficiency

Notice must outline some facts, sometimes with a supporting affidavit.

There is no "absolute entitlement to an evidentiary hearing", rather there must be a "factual and legal basis" for any motion.

Where insufficient notice is given on a constitutional challenge the court may refuse to entertain the argument.

Timing

Before Trial

Verbal notice on the day of trial can be found insufficient notice.

During Trial

The defence should not generally be permitted to raise a Charter motion at any point after the close of the Crown's case.

After Trial

Where a Charter issue is raised after the Crown's case, it cannot be based on the lack of evidence on the particular issue. By requiring the crown to present evidence supporting non-existent Charter motion is tantamount to shifting the burden on the crown to prove the absence of a breach.

Failure to Given Timely Notice

Discretion

It is in the ultimate discretion of the trial judge to decide whether to permit a late Charter application.

The trial judge had discretion to refuse to hear any motions with no notice or insufficient notice. The Court must balance the efficient use of court resources with the determination of court matters.

Motion to Dismiss Charter Motions

A trial judge may dismiss a motion under its powers to control proceedings for those applications that lack merit or are not brought in time.

The judge should be "reluctant to foreclose an inquiry into an alleged violation" of the Charter.

The judge should give consideration "whether there is an 'air of reality' to the alleged breach.

The court may consider factors including:

1. whether or not there is any statutory rule or practice direction requiring notice;
2. the notice which was given to the Crown;
3. the point during the trial proceedings when the appellants’ counsel first indicated he intended to bring a Charter motion;
4. the extent to which the Crown was prejudiced by the absence of any specific reference to a Charter-based argument in the notice given to the Crown; and
5. the specific nature of the Charter argument which counsel propose to advance and the impact the application could have on the course of the trial.

Timing of the Charter Application

A significant factor on the discretion to dismiss a Charter application is the timing when the motion was made.

Procedure

The procedure to dismiss any motion will be dictated by the particular rules of court for the particular jurisdiction.

Appeals

Reviewing a judge’s decision a whether there was a Charter breach is determined on the standard of correctness. However, the evidence underlying the Charter matter can only be reviewed on the standard of “palpable and overriding error”.

Preserving Right of Appeal

A guilty plea after a failed Charter application extinguishes all rights of appeal.

When an application fails, "the proper procedure to follow when an accused wishes to preserve his or her right to appeal an adverse voir dire ruling is to admit the facts alleged by the Crown and invite the judge to convict." There are various options available including a joint statement of fact, no submissions no guilt or innocence, or agreement that a conviction be entered.

On Appeal but Not Raised at Trial

An accused may raise a new issue on appeal only with leave of the court.

Even where leave is not requested, particularly where the accused is self-represented on appeal, the court may still consider whether to grant leave.

Briefs

The crown does not need to file a brief responding to an accused's Charter motion. He may instead wait until the conclusion of the accused's evidence to decide.

Affiant Reviewing Applicant's Brief

Giving the factum or brief to the affiant to read is not impermissible however should be avoided where the factual inconsistencies may be used to undermine the witnesses credibility.

Charter Application to Evidence Collected in Foreign Countries

Actions of a foreign state outside of Canada cannot be subject to Charter review.

Proof of foreign law is a question of fact. The judge, in determining whether foreign law has been compiled with, may hear expert evidence from legal experts. The judge must not engage in interpreting the law themselves.

The extent to which the experts agree there will be a "strong presumption" that the propositions in agreement accurately represents foreign law.

Remedies

Charter remedies include:

• Charter Remedies
• Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter
• Stay of Proceedings
• Costs

Voir également

• Voir Dire
• Precedent - Charter Applications