« Preuve d'expert qualifiée » : différence entre les versions

De Le carnet de droit pénal
Modification suivante →
VisuelWikicode
Page créée avec « {{en|Qualified_Expert_Evidence}} »
 
Aucun résumé des modifications
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{en|Qualified_Expert_Evidence}}
{{en|Qualified_Expert_Evidence}}
{{Currency2|Juillet|2021}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderOpinions}}
==General Principles==
L'opinion d'un expert est un témoignage qui donne une opinion sur des faits perçus par lui ou par un autre qui concernent une question qui échappe probablement à l'expérience et aux connaissances du juge des faits (c'est-à-dire un profane).<ref>
''Folkes v Chadd'' (1782), 3 Dougl. 157<br>
{{CanLIIRP|J-L J|5246|2000 SCC 51 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 600}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}{{atL|5246|56}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Abbey|1lpcd|1982 CanLII 25 (SCC)|[1982] 2 SCR 24}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 9}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} at 413 (l'opinion doit "provide information ‘which is likely to be outside the experience or knowledge of’” the trier of fact")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bunniss|gcwck|1964 CanLII 673 (BC SC)| (1964), 44 CR 262 (BC Co. Ct.)}}{{perBCSC|Tyrwhitt-Drake J}} (un expert est "one who has by dint of training and practice, acquired a good knowledge of the science or art concerning which his opinion is sought, and the practical ability to use his judgment in that science")<br>
</ref>
L'expert doit avoir des connaissances particulières en la matière
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Terceira|6gmx|1998 CanLII 2174 (ON CA)|123 CCC 1 (Ont. CA)}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}
{{supra1|Mohan}}{{atp|414}} (the witness must be “shown to have acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she undertakes to testify”)
</ref>
et l'opinion doit être ''raisonnablement nécessaire'' pour aider le juge des faits à prendre une décision appropriée.<ref>
{{supra1|Mohan}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lovie|6jjw|1995 CanLII 801 (ON CA)|100 CCC (3d) 68}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}<br>
</ref>
Il ne doit pas non plus y avoir de règles d’exclusion qui empêcheraient autrement la preuve.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|NO|22ms4|2009 ABCA 75 (CanLII)|186 CRR (2d) 60}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|22ms4|19}}<br>
</ref>
Le recours à des témoignages d'experts dans les litiges est essentiel, en particulier dans les cas qui impliquent des « domaines hautement techniques » qui ne pourraient pas être plaidés sans assistance.<REf>
{{CanLIIRPC|Whitfield v. Whitfield|gsp2p|2016 ONCA 581 (CanLII)|401 DLR (4th) 128}}{{TheCourtONCA}} ("There is no question that expert evidence is essential to the litigation process and that many cases involving highly technical areas could not be tried without")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Abbey|259rl|2009 ONCA 624 (CanLII)|246 CCC (3d) 301}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|259rl|73}}, leave to appeal to SCC refused<br>
</ref>
; Charge de la preuve
La présomption pour tout témoin donné est qu'un témoignage d'opinion n'est pas admissible.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Abbott and Haliburton Company v WBLI Chartered Accountants|fxl0z|2013 NSCA 66 (CanLII)|361 DLR (4th) 659}}{{perNSCA|MacDonald CJ}} (dissenting on other issue){{atL|fxl0z|24}}
</ref>
; Connaissances spécialisées contre opinion d’expert
Une personne attestant de connaissances spécialisées ou techniques ne sera pas nécessairement tenue d'être qualifiée d'expert. Où ils témoignent de leurs « connaissances factuelles » fondées sur leurs « connaissances, observations et expériences ».<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hamilton|fljvz|2011 ONCA 399 (CanLII)|271 CCC (3d) 208}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtsL|fljvz|273| to 284}} - evidence from phone company as to the mechanical workings of cell towers and their relationship to the cell phone<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ranger|2db2k|2010 ONCA 759 (CanLII)|OJ No 4840}}{{TheCourtONCA}} -- cell phone tower evidence<br>
{{contra}} {{CanLIIRP|Korski|236fj|2009 MBCA 37 (CanLII)|244 CCC (3d) 452}}{{perSCC-H|Steel JA}} -- required expert to testify on cell tower evidence<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Potter|j528d|2020 NSCA 9 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtNSCA}}{{AtsL|j528d|441| to 423}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ajise|hsb9t|2018 ONCA 494 (CanLII)|361 CCC (3d) 384}}{{atL|hsb9t|23}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|MacDonald|jb95g|2020 NSCA 69 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|jb95g|58}}{{perNSCA|Derrick JA}} (“ Technical evidence grounded in experience, without more, does not constitute expert evidence.”)<br>
</ref>
Il a été admis que les preuves techniques décrivant la « règle générale et ses exceptions » du fonctionnement de systèmes complexes ne constituent pas des preuves d'opinion lorsque la « compréhension des fondements scientifiques et techniques » n'est pas nécessaire pour donner des descriptions fiables.<Ref>
{{supra1|Hamilton}}{{AtsL|fljvz|273|, 274, 277}}
</ref>
Un expert qui témoigne d’une observation directe sans opinion n’est pas soumis à la règle d’exclusion de l’opinion. Cette preuve est admise de la même manière que la preuve par témoin oculaire.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|KA|1f9pr|1999 CanLII 3793 (ON CA)|137 CCC (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}{{atL|1f9pr|72}}<br>
</ref>
L'expert ne doit pas témoigner des faits, mais plutôt seulement de son opinion pour permettre au juge des faits de tirer des déductions.
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Parrott|523h|2001 SCC 3 (CanLII)|[2001] 1 SCR 178}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lavallee|1fsx3|1990 CanLII 95 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 852}}{{perSCC|Wilson J}}
</ref>
; Relevance
Relevance is "a threshold requirement" to admitting expert evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|Mohan}}{{pg|411}}
</ref>
; Specialization
The key requirement for expert evidence is that the expert "possesses special knowledge and experience going beyond that of the trier of fact."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Béland|1ftm1|1987 CanLII 27 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 398}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}{{atp|415}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Marquard|1frx2|1993 CanLII 37 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 223}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atL|1frx2|35}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chan|2d9sb|1993 ABCA 383 (CanLII)|145 AR 304}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|2d9sb|9}}<br>
</ref>
As long as the court is satisfied that the witness is sufficiently experienced he should be qualified.<ref>
{{ibid1|Chan}}{{atL|2d9sb|9}}
</ref>
Any deficiencies of the knowledge or opinion simply goes to weight.<ref>
{{ibid1|Chan}}{{atL|2d9sb|9}}</ref>
The means by which the skill, expertise, or knowledge was acquired goes to weight and not admissibility.<ref>
{{ibid1|Chan}}{{atL|2d9sb|9}} citing Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence of Canada (1992){{atps|536‑537}}: ("As long as the court is satisfied that the witness is sufficiently experienced in the subject matter at issue, the court will not be concerned with whether his or her skill was derived from specific studies or by practical training, although that may affect the weight to be given to the evidence.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Rayner|4v87|2000 NSCA 143 (CanLII)|189 NSR (2d) 144}}{{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}
</ref>
It is acceptable to obtain the ability to give an opinion from study, instruction, practical experience or observations. Formal study in not necessary.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Melaragni|gcw35|1992 CanLII 12764 (ONSC)|73 CCC (3d) 348}}{{perONCA|Moldaver JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|NO|22ms4|2009 ABCA 75 (CanLII)|186 CRR (2d) 60}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|22ms4|22}}<br>
</ref>
; Specialization and Usurpation of the Court
Specialization brings with it a risk that the jury "will inappropriately defer to the expert’s opinion rather than carefully evaluate it."<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Parliament v Conley|jfkp5|2021 ONCA 261 (CanLII)|155 OR (3d) 161}}{{perONCA|Harvison Young JA}}{{atL|jfkp5|43}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co||2015 SCC 23 (CanLII)|[2015] 2 SCR 182}}{{AtL||17}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan||1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 9}}, at pp. 21-22
</ref>
Courts must be wary of the "allure of scientific infallibility" that creates the risk of the evidence "swallow[ing] whole the fact-finding function of the court."<ref>
{{supra1|Whitfield}} at para 47<br>
{{supra1|Abbey}}, at para. 71
</reF>
Courts must be vigilent to draw a "firm line" between the role of the expert and the court..<Ref>
{{supra1|Whitfield}} at para 47<br>
J-LJ at para 25 to 26<Br>
</ref>
The closer the opinion is to the ultimate question for the court to determine the stricter limitations that must be placed on the evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|Whitfield}} at para 47<br>
J-LJ at para 37
</ref>
; Jury Instruction
Where a qualified expert gives opinion evidence outside of their field, the problem can generally be remedied through a "remedial instruction advising the jury to disabuse their minds of the inadmissible evidence."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sekhon|g35qf|2014 SCC 15 (CanLII)|[2014] 1 SCR 272}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atL|g35qf|48}}<br>
</ref>
; Standard of Review
Trial judges are entitled to "wide discretion" and deference when weighing the costs and benefits of admitting expert evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Clark|gnqq1|2016 ABCA 72 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|gnqq1|59| to 62}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|DD|525r|2000 SCC 43 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 275}}{{perSCC-H|Major J}}{{atL|525r|13}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Soni|gsqz9|2016 ABCA 231 (CanLII)|339 CCC (3d) 294}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{atL|gsqz9|8}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dominic|gpltp|2016 ABCA 114 (CanLII)|335 CCC (3d) 178}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|gpltp|17}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Abbey|259rl|2009 ONCA 624 (CanLII)|246 CCC (3d) 301}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|259rl|97}}, leave to appeal to SCC refused<br>
</ref>
Whether someone can be qualified as an expert is a question of law and is reviewable on a standard of correctness.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bear (C.W.)|g1p31|2013 MBCA 96 (CanLII)|299 Man R (2d) 175}}{{perMBCA|Steel JA}}{{atL|g1p31|81}}<br>
</ref>
The admission of expert opinion is reviewable on the standard of correctness.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Grandinetti|4pvr|2003 ABCA 307 (CanLII)|178 CCC (3d) 449}}{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}}{{AtsL|4pvr|90}} aff’d, {{CanLIIR|1jmfq|2005 SCC 5 (CanLII)}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leinen|g01l8|2013 ABCA 283 (CanLII)|301 CCC (3d) 1}}{{AtL|g01l8|21}}<br>
</ref>
However, absent error in principle, the reviewing court should be reluctant to interfere with the trial judge's decision.<REf>
{{CanLIIRP|Andres|dwc|2003 ABCA 333 (CanLII)|112 CRR (2d) 117}}{{perABCA|Fraser ACJ}}{AtL|dwc|21}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|B(CR)|1fswk|1990 CanLII 142 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 717}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}{{atL|1fswk|29}}<br>
{{supra1|Leinen}}{{atL|g01l8|21}}
</ref>
{{Reflist|2}}
== Requirements of Expert Evidence ("Mohan" Test)==
* [[Legal Requirements for Qualified Expert Evidence]]
==Procedure==
* [[Procedure for Calling Expert Evidence]]
==Evidence==
* [[Rules of Evidence for a Qualified Expert]]
==Example Fields of Qualifications==
* [[Established Fields of Expert Evidence]]
===Opinion Evidence Outside of Qualification===
Where a qualified expert testifies to matters directly outside of their area of qualification but is clearly within their area of special knowledge, the evidence can still be accepted, absent any objection to the evidence by the opposing side.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Marquard|1frx2|1993 CanLII 37 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 223}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atps|242-44}}</ref>
Likewise, a technical failure to qualify someone who clearly has expertise in the area, absent any objections, should be permitted to give expert evidence.<ref>
{{ibid1|Marquard}}{{atps|242-44}}</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
===Where Technical Evidence Does Not Require Expert Evidence===
There is some difference in opinion of whether or not expert qualification is needed to present evidence from cell phone towers.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hamilton|fljvz|2011 ONCA 399 (CanLII)|271 CCC (3d) 208}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|fljvz|273| to 284}} - evidence from phone company as to the mechanical workings of cell towers and their relationship to the cell phone. However, they did not give evidence triangulating the location of the accused's phone.<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ranger|2db2k|2010 ONCA 759 (CanLII)|OJ No 4840}}{{TheCourtONCA}} -- cell phone tower evidence accepted without qualification for ''general'' location evidence<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Korski|236fj|2009 MBCA 37 (CanLII)|244 CCC (3d) 452}}{{perMBCA|Steel JA}} -- required expert to testify on cell tower evidence<br>
</ref>
It is generally accepted that even where it is not necessary, it is useful to explain some of the records.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRx|McBean|flkp7|2011 ONSC 3125 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Fuerst J}}<br>
</ref>
Evidence on the regular functioning of social media websites can in circumstances be accepted without qualification.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Soh|g50jc|2014 NBQB 20 (CanLII)|1079 APR 328}}{{perNBQB|LaVigne J}}
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
==See Also==
* [[Model Examinations (Evidence)]]
* [[Precedents, Court Forms and Checklists]]

Version du 19 juin 2024 à 19:24

Ang
Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois Juillet 2021. (Rev. # 1971)
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.

General Principles

L'opinion d'un expert est un témoignage qui donne une opinion sur des faits perçus par lui ou par un autre qui concernent une question qui échappe probablement à l'expérience et aux connaissances du juge des faits (c'est-à-dire un profane).[1] L'expert doit avoir des connaissances particulières en la matière [2] et l'opinion doit être raisonnablement nécessaire pour aider le juge des faits à prendre une décision appropriée.[3] Il ne doit pas non plus y avoir de règles d’exclusion qui empêcheraient autrement la preuve.[4]

Le recours à des témoignages d'experts dans les litiges est essentiel, en particulier dans les cas qui impliquent des « domaines hautement techniques » qui ne pourraient pas être plaidés sans assistance.[5]

Charge de la preuve

La présomption pour tout témoin donné est qu'un témoignage d'opinion n'est pas admissible.[6]

Connaissances spécialisées contre opinion d’expert

Une personne attestant de connaissances spécialisées ou techniques ne sera pas nécessairement tenue d'être qualifiée d'expert. Où ils témoignent de leurs « connaissances factuelles » fondées sur leurs « connaissances, observations et expériences ».[7]

Il a été admis que les preuves techniques décrivant la « règle générale et ses exceptions » du fonctionnement de systèmes complexes ne constituent pas des preuves d'opinion lorsque la « compréhension des fondements scientifiques et techniques » n'est pas nécessaire pour donner des descriptions fiables.[8]

Un expert qui témoigne d’une observation directe sans opinion n’est pas soumis à la règle d’exclusion de l’opinion. Cette preuve est admise de la même manière que la preuve par témoin oculaire.[9]

L'expert ne doit pas témoigner des faits, mais plutôt seulement de son opinion pour permettre au juge des faits de tirer des déductions. [10]

Relevance

Relevance is "a threshold requirement" to admitting expert evidence.[11]

Specialization

The key requirement for expert evidence is that the expert "possesses special knowledge and experience going beyond that of the trier of fact."[12] As long as the court is satisfied that the witness is sufficiently experienced he should be qualified.[13]

Any deficiencies of the knowledge or opinion simply goes to weight.[14]

The means by which the skill, expertise, or knowledge was acquired goes to weight and not admissibility.[15] It is acceptable to obtain the ability to give an opinion from study, instruction, practical experience or observations. Formal study in not necessary.[16]

Specialization and Usurpation of the Court

Specialization brings with it a risk that the jury "will inappropriately defer to the expert’s opinion rather than carefully evaluate it."[17] Courts must be wary of the "allure of scientific infallibility" that creates the risk of the evidence "swallow[ing] whole the fact-finding function of the court."[18] Courts must be vigilent to draw a "firm line" between the role of the expert and the court..[19] The closer the opinion is to the ultimate question for the court to determine the stricter limitations that must be placed on the evidence.[20]

Jury Instruction

Where a qualified expert gives opinion evidence outside of their field, the problem can generally be remedied through a "remedial instruction advising the jury to disabuse their minds of the inadmissible evidence."[21]

Standard of Review

Trial judges are entitled to "wide discretion" and deference when weighing the costs and benefits of admitting expert evidence.[22]

Whether someone can be qualified as an expert is a question of law and is reviewable on a standard of correctness.[23]

The admission of expert opinion is reviewable on the standard of correctness.[24] However, absent error in principle, the reviewing court should be reluctant to interfere with the trial judge's decision.[25]

  1. ↑ Folkes v Chadd (1782), 3 Dougl. 157
    R c J-L J, 2000 SCC 51 (CanLII), [2000] 2 SCR 600, par Binnie J, au para 56
    R c Abbey, 1982 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 24, par Dickson J
    R c Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, par Sopinka J at 413 (l'opinion doit "provide information ‘which is likely to be outside the experience or knowledge of’” the trier of fact")
    R c Bunniss, 1964 CanLII 673 (BC SC), (1964), 44 CR 262 (BC Co. Ct.), par Tyrwhitt-Drake J (un expert est "one who has by dint of training and practice, acquired a good knowledge of the science or art concerning which his opinion is sought, and the practical ability to use his judgment in that science")
  2. ↑ R c Terceira, 1998 CanLII 2174 (ON CA), 123 CCC 1 (Ont. CA), par Finlayson JA Mohan, supra, au p. 414 (the witness must be “shown to have acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she undertakes to testify”)
  3. ↑ Mohan, supra
    R c Lovie, 1995 CanLII 801 (ON CA), 100 CCC (3d) 68, par Finlayson JA
  4. ↑ R c NO, 2009 ABCA 75 (CanLII), 186 CRR (2d) 60, par curiam, au para 19
  5. ↑ Whitfield v. Whitfield, 2016 ONCA 581 (CanLII), 401 DLR (4th) 128, par curiam ("There is no question that expert evidence is essential to the litigation process and that many cases involving highly technical areas could not be tried without")
    R c Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 (CanLII), 246 CCC (3d) 301, par Doherty JA, au para 73, leave to appeal to SCC refused
  6. ↑ Abbott and Haliburton Company v WBLI Chartered Accountants, 2013 NSCA 66 (CanLII), 361 DLR (4th) 659, par MacDonald CJ (dissenting on other issue), au para 24
  7. ↑ R c Hamilton, 2011 ONCA 399 (CanLII), 271 CCC (3d) 208, par curiam, aux paras 273 to 284 - evidence from phone company as to the mechanical workings of cell towers and their relationship to the cell phone
    R c Ranger, 2010 ONCA 759 (CanLII), OJ No 4840, par curiam -- cell phone tower evidence
    contra R c Korski, 2009 MBCA 37 (CanLII), 244 CCC (3d) 452, par Steel JA -- required expert to testify on cell tower evidence
    R c Potter, 2020 NSCA 9 (CanLII), par curiam, aux paras 441 to 423
    R c Ajise, 2018 ONCA 494 (CanLII), 361 CCC (3d) 384, au para 23
    R c MacDonald, 2020 NSCA 69 (CanLII), au para 58, par Derrick JA (“ Technical evidence grounded in experience, without more, does not constitute expert evidence.”)
  8. ↑ Hamilton, supra, aux paras 273, 274, 277
  9. ↑ R c KA, 1999 CanLII 3793 (ON CA), 137 CCC (3d) 225, par Charron JA, au para 72
  10. ↑ R c Parrott, 2001 SCC 3 (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 178, par Binnie J
    R c Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 852, par Wilson J
  11. ↑ Mohan, supra, au p. 411
  12. ↑ R c Béland, 1987 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 398, par McIntyre J, au p. 415
    R c Marquard, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 223, par McLachlin J, au para 35
    R c Chan, 1993 ABCA 383 (CanLII), 145 AR 304, par curiam, au para 9
  13. ↑ , ibid., au para 9
  14. ↑ , ibid., au para 9
  15. ↑ , ibid., au para 9 citing Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence of Canada (1992), aux pp. 536‑537: ("As long as the court is satisfied that the witness is sufficiently experienced in the subject matter at issue, the court will not be concerned with whether his or her skill was derived from specific studies or by practical training, although that may affect the weight to be given to the evidence.")
    R c Rayner, 2000 NSCA 143 (CanLII), 189 NSR (2d) 144, par Saunders JA
  16. ↑ R c Melaragni, 1992 CanLII 12764 (ONSC), 73 CCC (3d) 348, par Moldaver JA
    R c NO, 2009 ABCA 75 (CanLII), 186 CRR (2d) 60, par curiam, au para 22
  17. ↑ Parliament v Conley, 2021 ONCA 261 (CanLII), 155 OR (3d) 161, par Harvison Young JA, au para 43
    White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23 (CanLII), [2015] 2 SCR 182, au para 17
    R c Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, at pp. 21-22
  18. ↑ Whitfield, supra at para 47
    Abbey, supra, at para. 71
  19. ↑ Whitfield, supra at para 47
    J-LJ at para 25 to 26
  20. ↑ Whitfield, supra at para 47
    J-LJ at para 37
  21. ↑ R c Sekhon, 2014 SCC 15 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 272, par Moldaver J, au para 48
  22. ↑ R c Clark, 2016 ABCA 72 (CanLII), par curiam, aux paras 59 to 62
    R c DD, 2000 SCC 43 (CanLII), [2000] 2 SCR 275, par Major J, au para 13
    R c Soni, 2016 ABCA 231 (CanLII), 339 CCC (3d) 294, par curiam (2:1), au para 8
    R c Dominic, 2016 ABCA 114 (CanLII), 335 CCC (3d) 178, par curiam, au para 17
    R c Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 (CanLII), 246 CCC (3d) 301, par Doherty JA, au para 97, leave to appeal to SCC refused
  23. ↑ R c Bear (C.W.), 2013 MBCA 96 (CanLII), 299 Man R (2d) 175, par Steel JA, au para 81
  24. ↑ R c Grandinetti, 2003 ABCA 307 (CanLII), 178 CCC (3d) 449, par McFadyen JA, aux paras 90{{{3}}} aff’d, R c 1jmfq, SCC 5 (CanLII) {{{3}}}
    R c Leinen, 2013 ABCA 283 (CanLII), 301 CCC (3d) 1, au para 21
  25. ↑ R c Andres, 2003 ABCA 333 (CanLII), 112 CRR (2d) 117, par Fraser ACJ{AtL|dwc|21}}
    R c B(CR), 1990 CanLII 142 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 717, par McLachlin J, au para 29
    Leinen, supra, au para 21

Requirements of Expert Evidence ("Mohan" Test)

Procedure

Evidence

Example Fields of Qualifications

Opinion Evidence Outside of Qualification

Where a qualified expert testifies to matters directly outside of their area of qualification but is clearly within their area of special knowledge, the evidence can still be accepted, absent any objection to the evidence by the opposing side.[1] Likewise, a technical failure to qualify someone who clearly has expertise in the area, absent any objections, should be permitted to give expert evidence.[2]

  1. ↑ R c Marquard, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 223, par McLachlin J, aux pp. 242-44
  2. ↑ , ibid., aux pp. 242-44

Where Technical Evidence Does Not Require Expert Evidence

There is some difference in opinion of whether or not expert qualification is needed to present evidence from cell phone towers.[1] It is generally accepted that even where it is not necessary, it is useful to explain some of the records.[2]

Evidence on the regular functioning of social media websites can in circumstances be accepted without qualification.[3]

  1. ↑ R c Hamilton, 2011 ONCA 399 (CanLII), 271 CCC (3d) 208, par curiam, aux paras 273 to 284 - evidence from phone company as to the mechanical workings of cell towers and their relationship to the cell phone. However, they did not give evidence triangulating the location of the accused's phone.
    R c Ranger, 2010 ONCA 759 (CanLII), OJ No 4840, par curiam -- cell phone tower evidence accepted without qualification for general location evidence
    cf. R c Korski, 2009 MBCA 37 (CanLII), 244 CCC (3d) 452, par Steel JA -- required expert to testify on cell tower evidence
  2. ↑ e.g. R c McBean, 2011 ONSC 3125 (CanLII), par Fuerst J
  3. ↑ R c Soh, 2014 NBQB 20 (CanLII), 1079 APR 328, par LaVigne J

See Also

Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Preuve_d%27expert_qualifiée&oldid=1971 »