Ce que signifie la collaboration au niveau de la détermination de la peine relativement à une infraction de fraude au sens normalement retenu par la jurisprudence

R. c. Perrier, 2013 QCCS 1658 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[65] La question de la collaboration mérite quelques commentaires. Faciliter une confiscation inévitable est certes un geste de collaboration avec les autorités, mais il ne s'agit pas de la collaboration au sens normalement retenu par la jurisprudence, comme dans le cas de M. Cantin qui, dans la présente affaire, a collaboré avec les autorités policières et a témoigné à plusieurs reprises devant les tribunaux.

[66] En effet, on parle généralement de collaboration lorsque le délinquant collabore réellement avec les autorités en fournissant de l'information et en témoignant lors d'un procès.

[67] Les auteurs de la huitième édition de l'ouvrage Sentencing écrivent :

The circumstances in which credit should be given for assistance to the police are deliberately broad. In order to insure that such encouragement is given, the appropriate reward for providing assistance should be given, whatever the offender's motive may have been in giving it, be it genuine remorse or simply self-interest. Insofar as an offender is prepared to implicate himself further and to help solve outstanding crimes, their is both a saving to the public purse and an indication the person is prepared to leave crime behind. What is to be encouraged is full and frank cooperation on the part of the offender, whatever be his motive.

The extent of the discount will depend to a large degree upon the willingness with which the disclosure is made. The offender will not receive any discount at all where he tailors his disclosure so as to reveal only information which he knows is already in the possession of the authorities. The discount will rarely be substantial unless the offender discloses everything he knows. To this extent, the inquiry is into the subjective nature of the offender's cooperation.

If the motive is genuine remorse, that circumstance may well warrant even greater leniency being extended, but contrition is not a necessary ingredient which must be shown in order to obtain a lesser sentence for giving assistance to the authorities. The reward for providing assistance should be given if the offender has genuinely cooperated with the authorities whether or not the information supplied turns out in fact to have been effective. The information which he gives must be such as could significantly assist the authorities. The information must, of course, be true; a false disclosure attracts no benefit at all. What is relevant here is the potential of the information to assist the authorities, as comprehended by the offender himself.

[68] Le jugement de la Cour d'appel ne permet pas de déterminer avec précision l'impact de la collaboration à la confiscation des biens en termes de réduction de la peine d'emprisonnement. Cet impact n'a pu être que marginal.