« Res Gestae et déclarations de décès » : différence entre les versions

{{CanLIIRP|Nurse|hzhw9|2019 ONCA 260 (CanLII)|145 OR (3d) 241}}{{AtL|hzhw9|78}} ( {{Tr}}« Like the dying declaration exception, the spontaneous utterance exception has long been recognized in Canada.")<Br>

{{CanLIIRx|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtL|jd1hr|83}} ( {{Tr}}« Res gestae is a long-established concept in the law of evidence. Despite its antiquity, its precise doctrinal significance at common law eludes clarity and precision. In translation for forensic purposes, it approximates “the events at issue in the litigation”. This adds little to our basic concepts of relevance and materiality. Its passing would not be mourned. All the more so when we have substituted principle for shibboleth.")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Clark|g19s|1983 CanLII 1805 (ON CA)|, 42 OR (2d) 609 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Dubin JA}} citing ''Ratten v The Queen'', [1972] A.C. 378 (P.C.) ( {{Tr}}« The stress or pressure of the act or event must be such that the possibility of concoction or deception can be safely discounted. The statement need not be made strictly contemporaneous to the occurrence so long as the stress or pressure created by it is ongoing and the statement is made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent. ")

{{supra1|Khan}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}( {{Tr}}« I am satisfied that applying the traditional tests for spontaneous declarations, the trial judge correctly rejected the mother's [evidence as to the child’s] statement.  The statement was not contemporaneous, being made fifteen minutes after leaving the doctor's office and probably one-half hour after the offence was committed.")

{{CanLIIRP|Dakin|6jwg|1995 CanLII 1106 (ON CA)|, 80 OAC 253 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|6jwg|20}} ( {{Tr}}« We do not accept the submission that the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Khan - in which there appears no reference to Clark - has changed the law regarding spontaneous declarations as stated in Clark and has reinstated the principle of strict contemporaneity enunciated in some earlier authorities. The admissibility of the declaration is assessed not simply by mechanical reference to time but rather in the context of all of the circumstances obtaining at the time, including those which tell against the possibility of concoction or distortion")<br>