La différence entre l'agent civil d’infiltration (state agent) et l’informateur (confidential informant)

Brind'Amour c. R., 2014 QCCA 33 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[63]        L’appelante ne remet pas en cause le critère juridique appliqué par la juge, plus particulièrement la définition d’un agent civil d’infiltration (« state agent »), telle que circonscrite par la Cour d’appel d’Ontario dans  R. v. N.Y., 2012 ONCA 745 (CanLII), ainsi que la distinction qu’elle fait avec la situation de l’informateur (« confidential informant ») :

[122] A confidential informant is a voluntary source of information to police or security authorities and is often paid for that information, but does not act at the direction of the state to go to certain places or to do certain things. A state agent does act at the direction of the police or security authorities and, too, is often paid. The state agent knows that if charges are laid, his or her identity may be disclosed to the defence and that he or she may be required to testify. A major distinction is that a confidential informant is entitled to confidentiality (subject to innocence at stake considerations) and may not be compelled to testify — protections that are vital to the individuals who provide such information, as they often put their lives on the line to provide information that may be vital to state security. A state agent is not afforded such a shield.

[64]        La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario avait retenu une définition analogue dans R. v. G.B. (2000), 2000 CanLII 16820 (ON CA), 146 C.C.C. (3^d) 465, paragr. 10 :

In general terms, the distinction between an informer and an agent is that an informer merely furnishes information to the police and an agent acts on the direction of the police and goes « into the field » to participate in the illegal transaction in some way. The identity of an informer is protected by a strong privilege and, accordingly, is not disclosable, subject to the innocence at stake exception. The identity of an agent is disclosable.