Exception relative aux déclarations contre les intérêts

De Le carnet de droit pénal
Ang
Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2016. (Rev. # 2194)
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

Voir également: Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay

The exception to hearsay includes admission that "in the broad sense refers to any statement made by a declarant and tendered as evidence at trial by the opposing party."[1]

Statements by Accused

A statement made by the accused is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule where the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.[2]

Where a statement fits into the category of admission against interest, it becomes preemptively admissible.[3]

There is some debate on whether an admission by the accused is hearsay at all.[4]

These statements can be admitted without analysis of necessity and reliability.[5]

Statements by the accused addressed to his wife will be admissible against him.[6]

Statements by a Third Party

A statement can only be binding against the party who made them. Thus, a out-of-court statement can only be admissible in a trial against the person who made them.[7]

A statement of a third party admitting to the murder cannot be used in the murder trial of another person. The defence would have to call that third party as a witness.[8]

Statements by Co-Accused

Out-of-Court statements made by the co-accused are hearsay and cannot be used as corroborative evidence at trial of the accused.[9] Should the evidence be accepted as against the co-accused, limiting instructions are required to prevent its use against the accused.[10]

Corporate Accused

Statements made by an agent of an organization that is within his scope of authority to a third person is admissible against their interests where the statement is part of a communciation which the agent is authorized to have with the third party.[11]

  1. R c Violette, 2008 BCSC 422 (CanLII), [2008] BCJ No 2781, par Romilly J, aux paras 63 to 65 - in context of Wiretaps
  2. R c Terry, 1996 CanLII 199 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 207, par McLachlin J, au para 28 (“an admission against interest made by the accused is admissible as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, provided that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.”)
  3. R c Ciancio, 2007 BCSC 777 (CanLII), par Singh J, au para 24 citing Sopinka on Evidence
  4. e.g. R c Evans, 1993 CanLII 86 (SCC), [1993] 3 SCR 653, par Sopinka J, au para 24
    Ciancio, supra, aux paras 15 to 36
  5. R c Foreman, 2002 CanLII 6305 (ON CA), 169 CCC (3d) 489, par Doherty JA, au p. 502
  6. R c RRW (No. 2), 2010 NLTD 137 (CanLII), par Goodridge J
  7. R c Abu-Sharife, 2006 BCSC 902 (CanLII), par Shabbits J, au para 29
  8. R c Yu, 2000 BCCA 626 (CanLII), 150 CCC (3d) 217, par Mackenzie JA
  9. R c Rhyno, 2011 NSCA 120 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 5
  10. , ibid., au para 7
    Ward, supra, at paras 32-38
  11. R c Strand Electric Ltd, 1968 CanLII 421 (ON CA), , [1969] 1 OR 1990, OJ 1291 (ONCA), par MacKay JA
    R c Petro Canada, 2009 ONCJ 179 (CanLII), 82 WCB (2d) 729, par Manno J
    R c Dana Canada Corp, 2008 ONCJ 644 (CanLII), [2008] OJ 4487 (ONCJ), par D Harris J
    R c Syncrude, 2010 ABPC 123 (CanLII), 491 AR 270, par Tjosvold J