Questions diverses relatives aux documents

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2018. (Rev. # 12027)

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.

• < Preuve
• < Preuve documentaire

Notice and Service of Documents

Preuve de signification

(6) Pour l’application de la présente loi, la signification de tout document ou la remise ou l’envoi de tout avis peut être prouvé :

a) oralement sous serment ou par l’affidavit ou la déclaration solennelle de la personne qui l’a effectué;

b) par la déclaration écrite d’un agent de la paix portant qu’il a signifié le document ou remis ou envoyé l’avis, cette déclaration étant réputée être faite sous serment.

Preuve de signification conforme aux lois provinciales

(6.1) Par dérogation au paragraphe (6) [preuve de notifications et de signification de documents], la preuve de la signification de tout document peut se faire en conformité avec le droit provincial applicable à la poursuite des infractions provinciales.

Présence pour interrogatoire

(7) Malgré les paragraphes (6) [preuve de notifications et de signification de documents] et (6.1) [preuve de signification conformément aux lois provinciales], le tribunal peut demander à la personne qui semble avoir signé un affidavit, une déclaration solennelle ou une déclaration écrite conforme à l’un de ces paragraphes d’être présente pour interrogatoire ou contre-interrogatoire sur la preuve de la signification ou de la remise ou de l’envoi de l’avis.

Moyens de télécommunication

(8) Pour l’application de la présente loi, il est entendu que, dans le cadre de la perpétration d’une infraction comportant explicitement ou implicitement un élément de communication sans en préciser le moyen, la communication peut se faire notamment par tout moyen de télécommunication.

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 4; L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 31994, ch. 44, art. 31997, ch. 18, art. 22008, ch. 18, art. 12014, ch. 31, art. 2 Version précédente

---

4
[omis (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)]

Proof of notifications and service of documents

(6) For the purposes of this Act, the service of any document and the giving or sending of any notice may be proved

(a) by oral evidence given under oath by, or by the affidavit or solemn declaration of, the person claiming to have served, given or sent it; or

(b) in the case of a peace officer, by a statement in writing certifying that the document was served or the notice was given or sent by the peace officer, and such a statement is deemed to be a statement made under oath.

Proof of service in accordance with provincial laws

(6.1) Despite subsection (6) [preuve de notifications et de signification de documents], the service of documents may be proved in accordance with the laws of a province relating to offences created by the laws of that province.

Attendance for examination

(7) Despite subsection (6) [preuve de notifications et de signification de documents] or (6.1) [preuve de signification conformément aux lois provinciales], the court may require the person who appears to have signed an affidavit, a solemn declaration or a statement in accordance with that subsection to appear before it for examination or cross-examination in respect of the issue of proof of service or of the giving or sending of any notice.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 4; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 3; 1994, c. 44, s. 3; 1997, c. 18, s. 2; 2008, c. 18, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 2.

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Evidential Exhibits and Identification Exhibits

In the trial process not all documents that are put to a witness are admissible as actual evidence. Certain items are marked for identification only.

It has been recommended that all items put to a witness, even if for cross examination purposes, should be marked for identification purposes in order to assist appellate review.

Proceedings Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act

Preuve de signification

152 (1) Pour l’application de la présente loi, la signification d’un document peut être prouvée par témoignage oral fait sous serment, par affidavit ou par déclaration solennelle de la personne qui affirme avoir elle-même signifié le document ou l’avoir envoyé par service de messagerie.

Preuve de la signature et de l’identité du signataire

(2) Lorsque la preuve de signification d’un document est faite par affidavit ou par déclaration solennelle, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver l’authenticité de la signature ni la qualité du déclarant ou de la personne qui reçoit la déclaration si cette qualité y figure.



---

Proof of service

152 (1) For the purposes of this Act, service of any document may be proved by oral evidence given under oath by, or by the affidavit or statutory declaration of, the person claiming to have personally served it or sent it by confirmed delivery service.

Proof of signature and official character unnecessary

(2) If proof of service of any document is offered by affidavit or statutory declaration, it is not necessary to prove the signature or official character of the person making or taking the affidavit or declaration, if the official character of that person appears on the face of the affidavit or declaration.

– LSJPA (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Sceau

153 Il n’est pas nécessaire, pour la validité des dénonciations, actes d’accusation, sommations, mandats, procès-verbaux, peines, condamnations, ordonnances ou autres actes de procédure ou documents utilisés dans les poursuites intentées sous le régime de la présente loi, qu’un sceau y soit apposé.

– LSJPA (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Summaries of Voluminous Documents

Summaries of voluminous raw documents can be admissible for the purpose of assisting the trier-of-fact in understanding "the entire picture represented by voluminous documentary evidence" as long as source documents are also admitted. "The usefulness of the summaries depended entirely ... upon the acceptance ... the facts upon which the summaries were based."

In practice, spreadsheets of banking records that have not been admitted have been found acceptable where the tables can be authenticated as an accurate summary of the records it represents. The witness need not be the author of the spreadsheet or the source records.

Admissible summaries can include Crown brief reports where it conforms with exhibits and testimony. It's usefulness will depend on the findings of fact.

Related to this principle from Schell, summaries can be admitted without admitting the source documents under the Voluminous Document Hearsay Exception.

Documents Found in Possession of Accused

Documents that are found in actual or constructive possession of the accused can be used to draw the inference that he has knowledge of the contents of the documents and has a state of mind about any transaction contemplated by it. However, where the document has been recognized, adopted or acted upon by the accused, the documents can be admitted for the truth of their contents.

Documents held in the possession of the accused is prima facie admissible for the truth of its contents.

This view has been applied to documents found in the accused's offices.

Documents Made by Accused

Documents that contain hearsay evidence are admissible where they were made by or under the direction of the accused.

Signatures and Handwriting

A signature is evidence suggesting the authorship of a document or knowledge and consent to the contents of it.

Where a party disputes the authenticity or identity of a signature, the signature can be proven by comparison "with any writing proved [...] to be genuine."

where a witness has frequently seen the handwriting of an individual can give evidence establishing the identity of the writer.

See also: R c Abdi, 1997 CanLII 4448 (ON CA), 116 CCC (3d) 385, par Robins JA

See also Identity and Lay Opinion Evidence

Forged Documents

Proving forged signature on documents will require an expert of handwriting analysis to determine the probability of matching the accused's signature and the document.

Errors in Documents

Certificates of analysis

Errors and ambiguity in certificates of analysis in which there was a typographical error is not fatal to the case where it can be mended by way of viva voce evidence and where “the error was not of such a nature as to have misled the accused or to interfere with his right to make full answer and defense and receive a fair trial”.

Inadmissible Documents

Section 30(10) sets out several types of records which are inadmissible despite any other provision of the evidence act:

• records "made in the course of an investigation or inquiry"
• records "made in the course of obtaining or giving legal advice or in contemplation of a legal proceeding,"
• privileged records
• "a record of or alluding to a statement made by a person who is not, or if he were living and of sound mind would not be, competent and compellable to disclose in the legal proceeding a matter disclosed in the record;"
• "any record the production of which would be contrary to public policy"
• "any transcript or recording of evidence taken in the course of another legal proceeding."

Foreign Records

The admissibility of foreign documents is governed by section 36 to 40 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, RSC 1985, c 30 (4th Supp) (MLAC).

ADMISSIBILITY IN CANADA OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED ABROAD PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT

Foreign records

36 (1) In a proceeding with respect to which Parliament has jurisdiction, a record or a copy of the record and any affidavit, certificate or other statement pertaining to the record made by a person who has custody or knowledge of the record, sent to the Minister by a state or entity in accordance with a Canadian request, is not inadmissible in evidence by reason only that a statement contained in the record, copy, affidavit, certificate or other statement is hearsay or a statement of opinion.

Probative value

(2) For the purpose of determining the probative value of a record or a copy of a record admitted in evidence under this Act, the trier of fact may examine the record or copy, receive evidence orally or by affidavit, or by a certificate or other statement pertaining to the record in which a person attests that the certificate or statement is made in conformity with the laws that apply to a state or entity, whether or not the certificate or statement is in the form of an affidavit attested to before an official of the state or entity, including evidence as to the circumstances in which the data contained in the record or copy was written, stored or reproduced, and draw any reasonable inference from the form or content of the record or copy.

R.S., 1985, c. 30 (4th Supp.), s. 36; 1994, c. 44, s. 96; 1999, c. 18, s. 120; 2014, c. 31, s. 44.

– MLACMA

Foreign things

37. In a proceeding with respect to which Parliament has jurisdiction, a thing and any affidavit, certificate or other statement pertaining to the thing made by a person in a state or entity as to the identity and possession of the thing from the time it was obtained until its sending to a competent authority in Canada by the state or entity in accordance with a Canadian request, are not inadmissible in evidence by reason only that the affidavit, certificate or other statement contains hearsay or a statement of opinion.
R.S., 1985, c. 30 (4th Supp.), s. 37; 1994, c. 44, s. 97; 1999, c. 18, s. 120.

– MLACMA

Status of certificate

38 (1) An affidavit, certificate or other statement mentioned in section 36 or 37 is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the statements contained therein without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the affidavit, certificate or other statement.

Notice

(2) Unless the court decides otherwise, in a proceeding with respect to which Parliament has jurisdiction, no record or copy thereof, no thing and no affidavit, certificate or other statement mentioned in section 36 or 37 shall be received in evidence unless the party intending to produce it has given to the party against whom it is intended to be produced seven days notice, excluding holidays, of that intention, accompanied by a copy of the record, copy, affidavit, certificate or other statement and unless, in the case of a thing, the party intending to produce it has made it available for inspection by the party against whom it is intended to be produced during the five days following a request by that party that it be made so available.

– MLACMA

Service abroad

39. The service of a document in the territory over which the state or entity has jurisdiction may be proved by affidavit of the person who served it.
R.S., 1985, c. 30 (4th Supp.), s. 39; 1999, c. 18, s. 121.

– MLACMA

Canada Evidence Act

Oaths taken abroad

53. Oaths, affidavits, solemn affirmations or declarations administered, taken or received outside Canada by any person mentioned in section 52 are as valid and effectual and are of the like force and effect to all intents and purposes as if they had been administered, taken or received in Canada by a person authorized to administer, take or receive oaths, affidavits, solemn affirmations or declarations therein that are valid and effectual under this Act.
R.S., c. E-10, s. 50.

– CEA

---

Documents to be admitted in evidence

54 (1) Any document that purports to have affixed, impressed or subscribed on it or to it the signature of any person authorized by any of paragraphs 52(a) to (d) to administer, take or receive oaths, affidavits, solemn affirmations or declarations, together with their seal or with the seal or stamp of their office, or the office to which the person is attached, in testimony of any oath, affidavit, solemn affirmation or declaration being administered, taken or received by the person, shall be admitted in evidence, without proof of the seal or stamp or of the person’s signature or official character.

Status of statements

(2) An affidavit, solemn affirmation, declaration or other similar statement taken or received in a foreign country by an official referred to in paragraph 52(e) shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the official appearing to have signed the affidavit, solemn affirmation, declaration or other statement.
R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 54; 1994, c. 44, s. 93.

– CEA

---