Le droit en matière d'ajournement ou de report d'audience

R. c. Vézina, 2005 CanLII 45339 (QC C.S.)

[6] Le droit en matière d'ajournement ou de report d'audience a été résumé récemment par la Cour d'appel du Québec qui reprend l'arrêt Darville dont on a parlé tout à l'heure, le 13 septembre 2004 dans l'arrêt La Reine c. M.V., 500-08-000203-036, 13 septembre 2004, répertorié à J.E. 2004-1867, rendu en même temps que l'arrêt R. c. J.C.G., J.E. 2004-1868. Je vais lire des notes du juge Dalphond, particulièrement aux paragraphes 10 et suivants :

[10] It is undisputed that whether an adjournment or a postponement should be granted or not is a discretionary matter for the trial judge. [références omises]

[11] Such judicial discretion can however be reviewed on appeal if it has not been exercised judicially. [références omises] The test for appellate review is whether the trial judge has given sufficient weight to all relevant considerations. [références omises] Of course, if the judgment is based on reasons that are not well founded in law, a court of appeal may intervene.

[12] On the elements to be considered by a judge when asked to grant an adjournment of a criminal trial due to the absence of a witness, the Supreme Court of Canada provided some guidelines in 1956 in R. v. Darville, [[1956] 116 C.C.C. 113]. They can be summarized as follows:

a) That the absent witness is a material witness in the case;

b) That the party applying for an adjournment has been guilty of no laches or neglect in omitting to endeavour to procure the attendance of this witness; and

c) That there is a reasonable expectation that the witness can be procured at the future time to which it is sought to put off the trial.

[…]

[14] Finally, I believe that it is proper for a trial judge when asked for a postponement to consider other relevant circumstances such as the gravity of the charges, the number of previous postponements and the consequences of a postponement for the accused.

[15] Briefly stated, the decision whether or not to grant an adjournment must be made in the light of the realities of each case and must be consistent with the interests of justice.