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

De Le carnet de droit pénal
m Remplacement de texte : « (SCC) » par « (CSC) »
m Remplacement de texte : « \("([a-zA-Z]) » par « ( {{Tr}}« $1 »
Ligne 8 : Ligne 8 :
La représentation par un avocat n'est pas nécessaire pour avoir un procès équitable.<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}}
{{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>
( {{Tr}}« 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>
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>
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>
{{CanLIIRx|Gendreau|fn4bp|2011 ABCA 256 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|fn4bp|28}}</ref>
Ligne 14 : Ligne 14 :
; Équité du procès
; 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.<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>
{{CanLIIRP|Crichton|ggvtq|2015 BCCA 138 (CanLII)|319 CCC (3d) 504}}{{perBCCA|Bennett JA}}{{atL|ggvtq|23}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
</ref>


Ligne 23 : Ligne 23 :
; Droit à l’autoreprésentation
; 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.<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 (CSC)|[1991] 1 RCS 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|Swain|1fsks|1991 CanLII 104 (CSC)|[1991] 1 RCS 933}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atp|972}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
{{CanLIIRP|Imon-Russel|hzgjv|2019 ONCA 252 (CanLII)|145 OR (3d) 197}}{{perONCA|Lauwers JA}}{{atL|hzgjv|67}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
{{CanLIIRP|Chemama|gsz4v|2016 ONCA 579 (CanLII)|351 OAC 381}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}{{atL|gsz4v|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")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chemama|gsz4v|2016 ONCA 579 (CanLII)|351 OAC 381}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}{{atL|gsz4v|58}} ( {{Tr}}« 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")<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Ligne 35 : Ligne 35 :
; Les défis de l’autoreprésentation
; 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.<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.")
{{CanLIIRx|Bain|hx1mn|2014 QCCS 1625 (CanLII)}}{{PerQCCS|Cournoyer J}}{{atL|hx1mn|24}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
</ref>


Ligne 49 : Ligne 49 :


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>
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.")
{{CanLIIRx|Vaca|jfvvv|2021 ABCA 174 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|jfvvv|22}} ( {{Tr}}« Courts have an obligation to do everything possible to prevent unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.")
</ref>
</ref>
Cela peut inclure :
Cela peut inclure :
Ligne 64 : Ligne 64 :
{{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|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>
{{CanLIIRP|Jayne|1wgkr|2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII)|90 OR (3d) 37}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Richards|h3xwx|2017 ONCA 424 (CanLII)|349 CCC (3d) 284}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|h3xwx|110}} ("Where an accused is self-represented, a trial judge has a duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. To fulfill this duty, the trial judge must provide guidance to the accused to the extent the circumstances of the case and accused may require. Within reason, the trial judge must provide assistance to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his defence and to guide him as the trial unfolds in such a way that the defence is brought out with its full force and effect:...")<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Richards|h3xwx|2017 ONCA 424 (CanLII)|349 CCC (3d) 284}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|h3xwx|110}} ( {{Tr}}« Where an accused is self-represented, a trial judge has a duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. To fulfill this duty, the trial judge must provide guidance to the accused to the extent the circumstances of the case and accused may require. Within reason, the trial judge must provide assistance to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his defence and to guide him as the trial unfolds in such a way that the defence is brought out with its full force and effect:...")<Br>
{{supra1|Tossounian}}<br>
{{supra1|Tossounian}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sabir|hw2fn|2018 ONCA 912 (CanLII)|367 CCC (3d) 426}}{{perONCA|Strathy CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sabir|hw2fn|2018 ONCA 912 (CanLII)|367 CCC (3d) 426}}{{perONCA|Strathy CJ}}<br>
Ligne 72 : Ligne 72 :
; Il incombe de fournir de l’aide
; Il incombe de fournir de l’aide
Il incombe au tribunal de fournir une « lourde charge » de fournir une 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>
{{supra1|Ricards}}{{atL|h3xwx|112}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
{{CanLIIRP|Darlyn|gdfm3|1946 CanLII 248 (BC CA)|88 CCC 269}}{{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wheelton|1p1h9|1992 CanLII 2816 (YK CA)|CCC (3d) 476}} per McEachern CJ at 488 (CCC)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wheelton|1p1h9|1992 CanLII 2816 (YK CA)|CCC (3d) 476}} per McEachern CJ at 488 (CCC)<Br>
Ligne 85 : Ligne 85 :


La Cour ne devrait prendre que les mesures raisonnables pour aider l'accusé sans devenir l'avocat de l'accusé.<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.")
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|111}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
</ref>


Ligne 91 : Ligne 91 :
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>
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|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>
{{CanLIIRP|McGibbon|1npn8| (1988), 1988 CanLII 149 (ON CA)|45 CCC (3d) 334}}{{perONCA-H|Griffiths JA}} at 347 ( {{Tr}}« 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>
</ref>


Ligne 118 : Ligne 118 :
* expliquer le processus d'essai ;<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>
{{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.")
{{CanLIIRP|Jayne|1wgkr|2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII)|90 OR (3d) 37}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1wgkr|6}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
</ref>
* identifier les problèmes pertinents ;<ref>
* identifier les problèmes pertinents ;<ref>
Ligne 140 : Ligne 140 :
; Questions liées à la Charte
; Questions liées à la Charte
Cette obligation peut inclure le soulèvement de questions liées à la « Charte » de la propre initiative du tribunal.<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")
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|113}} ( {{Tr}}« 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>
</ref>
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.<ref>
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.<ref>
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|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:")
{{supra1|Richards}}{{atL|h3xwx|113}} ( {{Tr}}« 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:")
</ref>
</ref>



Version du 4 novembre 2024 à 10:46

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois December 2021. (Rev. # 29485)
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: 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.[8]

  1. R c Rain, 1998 ABCA 315 (CanLII), 130 CCC (3d) 167, par Sulatycky JA, au p. 182 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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 CSC 20 (CanLII), par Karakatsanis J, au para 57
  5. R c Swain, 1991 CanLII 104 (CSC), [1991] 1 RCS 933, par Lamer CJ, au p. 972 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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. voir plus Contre-interrogatoires#Cross-Examination_by_Self-Represented_Accused

Obligations du tribunal

Voir également: Rôle du juge de première instance

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 ».[1] Cela peut inclure :

  • aider à la conduite de la défense pour garantir que la défense soit efficacement mise en évidence[2]
  • expliquer la loi pertinente et ses implications[3]
  • discuter des options procédurales
  • aider les justiciables à comprendre, faire valoir leurs droits et argumenter

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.[4]

Il incombe de fournir de l’aide

Il incombe au tribunal de fournir une « lourde charge » de fournir une assistance.[5]

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. [6]

La Cour ne devrait prendre que les mesures raisonnables pour aider l'accusé sans devenir l'avocat de l'accusé.[7]

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. »[8]

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 ».[9]

Devoir d’assurer la compréhension

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 ».[10]

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]

  1. la mise en accusation,
  2. l'appel des témoins de la couronne,
  3. le droit de contre-interroger les témoins,
  4. le droit de s'opposer aux preuves non pertinentes
  5. le droit de citer des témoins,
  6. le droit et les risques associés à la décision de témoigner
  7. 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 ;[13]
  • expliquer comment formuler correctement les questions d'un témoin ;[14]
  • expliquer les étapes nécessaires lors de l'utilisation de pièces à conviction ou de transcriptions ;[15]
  • proposer du matériel sur la pratique d'essai ;[16]
  • faire preuve de tolérance à l'égard de leur comportement en raison d'un manque de compréhension ;
  • s'assurer que l'accusé a eu l'occasion de rencontrer et de parler avec des témoins.[17]
Questions liées à la Charte

Cette obligation peut inclure le soulèvement de questions liées à la « Charte » de la propre initiative du tribunal.[18] 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.[19]

  1. R c Vaca, 2021 ABCA 174 (CanLII), au para 22 ( [TRADUCTION] « Courts have an obligation to do everything possible to prevent unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.")
  2. R c Moghaddam, 2006 BCCA 136 (CanLII), 206 CCC (3d) 497, par Levine JA à 35
  3. Vaca, supra
  4. R c Varcoe, 2007 ONCA 194 (CanLII), 219 CCC (3d) 397, par MacFarland JA, au para 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”)
    R c Jayne, 2008 ONCA 258 (CanLII), 90 OR (3d) 37, par curiam
    R c Richards, 2017 ONCA 424 (CanLII), 349 CCC (3d) 284, par Watt JA, au para 110 ( [TRADUCTION] « Where an accused is self-represented, a trial judge has a duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. To fulfill this duty, the trial judge must provide guidance to the accused to the extent the circumstances of the case and accused may require. Within reason, the trial judge must provide assistance to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his defence and to guide him as the trial unfolds in such a way that the defence is brought out with its full force and effect:...")
    Tossounian, supra
    R c Sabir, 2018 ONCA 912 (CanLII), 367 CCC (3d) 426, par Strathy CJ
    R c Meloche, 2019 ONCA 521 (CanLII), par curiam
  5. Ricards, supra, au para 112 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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)
  6. 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
  7. Richards, supra, au para 111 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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.")
  8. 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 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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.")
  9. R c Neidig, 2018 BCCA 485 (CanLII), 425 CRR (2d) 262, par Frankel JA, au para 93
  10. R c Morillo, 2018 ONCA 582 (CanLII), 362 CCC (3d) 23, par Paciocco JA(chambers)
  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 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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. , ibid., au para 6
  14. Galna, supra, au para 6
    Jayne, supra, au para 6
  15. Jayne, supra, au para 6
  16. , ibid., au para 6
  17. Jayne, supra, au para 6
  18. Richards, supra, au para 113 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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")
  19. Richards, supra, au para 113 ( [TRADUCTION] « 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.[1]

Dans certaines circonstances, la Couronne aura l'obligation d'alerter au moins le juge ou l'accusé d'une éventuelle violation de la Charte.[2]

  1. R c Tossounian, 2017 ONCA 618 (CanLII), 254 CCC (3d) 365, par Juriansz JA
  2. par exemple. R c Breton2018 ONCA 753(*pas de liens CanLII) Modèle:À