Les sujets pouvant être abordés lors du contre-interrogatoire d'un témoin qui n'est pas accusé

R. v. Vander Wier, 2013 ONSC 6863 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[4]        It is well established that there is a broad right to cross-examine a non-accused witness, namely, on:

•         Discreditable conduct and associations: see R. v. Miller 1998 CanLII 5115 (ON CA), (1998), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 141 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 21; R. v. Cullen reflex, (1989), 52 C.C.C. (3d) 459 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 463; R. v. Tessier, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2890 (B.C.S.C.), at para. 7; R. v. Burgar, 2010 ABCA 318 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 318, at para. 12; R. v. Davison, DeRosie & MacArthur (1974), 20 C.C.C. (2d) 424 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 441.

•         Conditional discharges: see Cullen, at pp. 462-463.

•         Criminal convictions: see Miller, at para. 23; Tessier, at para. 10; R. v. Morgan & Simms (1996), 29 W.C.B. (2d) 516 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4; Burgar, at para. 12;   

•         Facts underlying charges pending: see Miller, at para. 22; R. v. Gonzague reflex, (1983), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 505 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 510-511.

•         Collateral issues: see Tessier, at para. 10; Gonzague, at p. 510-511.

•         Outstanding indictments: R v. Titus 1983 CanLII 49 (SCC), (1983), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.), at p. 324.

[5]        The right of an accused to cross-examine an ordinary witnesses without significant and unwarranted constraint is an essential component of the right to make full answer and defence: see R. v. Lyttle reflex, (2004) 180 C.C.C. (3d) 476, at para. 41.