Enquête préliminaire
| Ang |
| Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois janvier 2022. (Rev. # 10397) |
| 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
The preliminary inquiry justice derives all of its authority from Part XVIII of the Code. [1]
- Enquête par le juge de paix
535 Lorsqu’un prévenu inculpé d’un acte criminel passible d’un emprisonnement de quatorze ans ou plus est devant un juge de paix et qu’une demande a été présentée en vue de la tenue d’une enquête préliminaire au titre des paragraphes 536(4) [demande d'enquête préliminaire] ou 536.1(3) , le juge de paix doit, en conformité avec la présente partie, enquêter sur l’accusation ainsi que sur tout autre acte criminel qui découle de la même affaire fondé sur les faits révélés par la preuve recueillie conformément à la présente partie [Pt. XVIII – Procédure à l’enquête préliminaire (art. 535 à 551)].
L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 535; L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 96; 2002, ch. 13, art. 24; 2019, ch. 25, art. 238
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]
Les pouvoirs d'un juge d'enquête préliminaire n'existent que dans la loi et dans la partie XVIII du Code.Erreur de référence : Balise fermante </ref> manquante pour la balise <ref>
- ↑ R c Hynes, 2001 SCC 82 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 623, 159 CCC (3d) 359, par McLachlin CJ
Purpose
The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to set the matter down for trial before a Justice of the Superior Court.[1] In practice the Inquiry is used to test the strength of the Crown’s case.
Its purpose is also "to protect the accused from a needless, and indeed, improper, exposure to public trial where the enforcement agency is not in possession of evidence to warrant the continuation of the process." [2]
It is an "expeditious charge-screening mechanism"[3]
The inquiry judge has a general power to regulate the inquiry process under s. 537. The judge may require counsel to define the issues for which evidence will be called (see s.536.3), and may further limit the scope of the inquiry under section 536.5 and 549.
There is no constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry. Thus, any deprivation of a preliminary inquiry does not violate any principles of fundamental justice.[4]
- ↑
R c O’Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 411, par L'Heureux‑Dubé J, au para 134 ("The primary function of the preliminary inquiry...is undoubtedly to ascertain that the Crown has sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial")
R c Hynes, 2001 SCC 82 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 623, par McLachlin CJ, aux paras 30 to 31
R c Coke, [1996] OJ No 808(*pas de liens CanLII) , par Hill J, at paras 8 to 11
R c Deschamplain, 2004 SCC 76 (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 601, par Major J
R c MS, 2010 CanLII 61755 (NL PC), par Gorman J, au para 24 - ↑ Skogman v The Queen, 1984 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 93, par Estey J, au p. 105
- ↑ Hynes, supra, au para 48
- ↑ R c SJL, 2009 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2009] 1 SCR 426, par Deschamps J, au para 21
Discovery Function
Prior to the amendments in 2005, it has also been used as a venue for discovery.[1]
Since the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2002, c. 13 (Bill C-15A), discovery has lost some relevancy as a purpose of the preliminary inquiry. [2] The discovery purpose is "ancillary" to the main purpose of the hearing.[3]
The discovery function of the preliminary inquiry "does not encompass the right of the accused to call evidence ... which is solely relevant to a proposed application to exclude evidence at trial."[4]
Where the accused is in possession of all disclosure covering the investigation and offence there is some suggestion that the discovery purpose of the preliminary inquiry becomes largely irrelevant.[5]
Discovery function does not impose any obligations upon Crown to call all relevant evidence for trial.[6]
- Cross-examining Warrant Affiant (Dawson Applicantion)
There is some support to allow the accused to cross-examine the affiant during the preliminary inquiry.[7] In Ontario, this requires an application before the preliminary inquiry judge to determine if it is available.
- ↑
R c Skogman, 1984 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 93, par Estey J, au p. 105 (SCR)
("the preliminary hearing has become a forum where the accused is afforded an opportunity to discover and to appreciate the case to be made against him at trial where the requisite evidence is found to be present")
See R c Kasook, 2000 NWTSC 33 (CanLII), 2 WWR 683, par Vertes J, au para 25
- ↑ see R c SJL, 2009 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2009] 1 SCR 426, par Deschamps J, aux paras 21 and 23, 24
- ↑
R c Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 651, par Rothstein J, au para 36
SJL, supra, aux paras 21 to 24
R c Kushimo, 2015 ONCJ 28 (Ont.C.J.)(*pas de liens CanLII) , au para 18
R c Stinert, 2015 ABPC 4 (CanLII), 604 AR 151, par Rosborough J, aux paras 6 to 17
- ↑ R c Cowan, 2015 BCSC 224 (CanLII), par Ross J, au para 96
- ↑
R c Thomas, 2017 BCSC 841 (CanLII), par Baird J, au para 21 ("... I note that Mr. Thomas has had disclosure of the entire Crown case, including the specifics of his arrest. The form of additional Charter discovery that he requested at the preliminary inquiry stage was irrelevant to the primary purpose of that proceeding.")
- ↑
R c Pietruk, 1990 CanLII 6822 (ON SC), 74 OR (2d) 220, par Isaac J - application to compel Crown to call witnesses at preliminary inquiry denied
see also Electing a Preliminary Inquiry
- ↑
R c Dawson, 1998 CanLII 1010 (ON CA), 39 OR (3d) 436, par Carthy JA