Les éléments constitutifs de l'infraction de parjure

R. v. Colson, 2007 CanLII 28726 (NL PC)

Lien vers la décision

[30] In R. v. Calder, 1960 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1960] S.C.R. 892, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the offence of perjury requires proof of “three matters”:

…it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three matters, (i) that the evidence, specified in the indictment, given by the appellant ... was false in fact, (ii) that the appellant when he gave it knew that it was false, and (iii) that he gave it with intent to mislead the Court.

[31] In R. v. Erikson 2006 YKCA 13 (CanLII), (2006), 213 C.C.C. (3d) 374 (Y.T.C.A.), the Court of Appeal summarized the elements of the offence of perjury as follows:

To convict for perjury the Crown must prove: 1) that the accused made a false statement under oath or solemn declaration; 2) that the accused knew the statement was false when it was made; and 3) that he made the false statement intending to mislead the court: R. v. Calder, 1960 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1960] S.C.R. 892, 129 C.C.C. 202. Where the first two elements are proven, that is, that the accused made a false statement under oath and knew it to be false when it was made, the court may infer the third element, an intention to mislead the court: R. v. Wolf, 1974 CanLII 161 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 107, 17 (2d) C.C.C. 425.

[32] In R. v. H.B.S., [2007] N.J. No. 211 (S.C.), Mr. Justice LeBlanc considered section 131(1) of the Criminal Code and described the elements involved in the offence of perjury in the following manner:

To commit perjury as defined in S. 131(1) of the Criminal Code, the Crown must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that the accused made a statement under oath before a person authorized by law to permit it;

2. that the statement made was false;

3. that the accused knew his statement was false; and

4. that the accused made the statement with intent to mislead.

[33] In R. v. Evans reflex, (1995), 101 C.C.C. (3d) 369, the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that “knowingly giving false evidence is not enough for a conviction. There must, in addition, be an intent to mislead. It is incumbent upon the Crown to prove not only that the accused lied but that he did so for the purpose of misleading the court.” Similarly, in R. v. Hebert, 1989 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 233, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out that for “there to be perjury there has to be more than a deliberate false statement. The statement must also have been made with intent to mislead…” It has also been held, however, that absent “evidence to the contrary, the intent to mislead under s. 131 of the Criminal Code can be inferred from evidence establishing that the accused gave false evidence knowing it to be false” (see R. v. Seath 2000 ABCA 174 (CanLII), (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 133 (Alta. C.A.), at paragraph 15).