Construction T.G. Beco ltée c. Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu), 2009 QCCS 5271 (CanLII)
[35] Lors de la rédaction d'une dénonciation, il est important pour le dénonciateur de bien exposer non seulement les faits, mais aussi les raisons qui justifient l'émission d'un mandat de perquisition. Cette exigence est résumée ainsi par le juge Hill dans Re Criminal Code:
An affidavit or information in support of an order for an investigative technique is, in substance, a recitation of material, factual detail relevant to the preconditions for issuance of the respective orders. Some historical text or narrative is undoubtedly necessary to contextualize the ongoing criminal investigation. In some cases, notably cases with a relatively simple factual underpinning, the disclosure of learned facts with investigative sources will suffice to provide the judicial reader with a sense of the theory of the investigating authorities. It is in light of the theory that the court must consider whether issuance of the orders is justifiable and warranted. In a case of greater complexity, based upon an affidavit/information of some length and complexity, there exists a greater obligation on the draftsperson to assist the reader in understanding how persons and places and the sub-transactions described relate to the authorities' investigative theory regarding criminal complicity and such other matters as may be relevant to the respective applications. In cases of greater complexity, the meaning of the factual assertions is assisted by a statement of the affiant as to his or her opinions and conclusions in the sense of investigative theory and inferences in order to serve as a guide to the reading of the application. Where the investigative conclusions or theory are clearly expressed or codified at the outset of the affidavit/information by way of overview, the reader has a useful index or guide in order to determine whether the remainder of the document contains investigative facts with related sources, of sufficient credibility and cogency, to support the investigative theory which is inextricably linked to the necessity for the orders sought. Such an overview, perhaps cross-referenced to the relevant paragraphs in the remaining text of the document, facilitates the court engaging in a neutral, independent and critical review as to the existence of a proper record for the issuance of the respective orders. It is clear that mere opinion and conclusion and inference do not in and of themselves afford the basis for the issuance of investigative orders where such are entirely unsupported by reported facts together with their sources: Re Church of Scientology et al. v. The Queen (No. 6) reflex, (1985), 21 C.C.C. (3d) 147 (Ont. H.C.) at 166-168 per Osler J.; affirmed (1987), 1987 CanLII 122 (ON CA), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.) at 499-500 per curiam; leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. vii.
(Le soulignement est ajouté)
[36] Scott Hutchison formule la règle en ces termes:
Often it will not be obvious to a judicial officer why information is significant. If there are factual links to be drawn either directly or by inference, these may be pointed out to the judicial officer. If a piece of evidence plays a significant role in a circumstantial case it is proper – indeed, preferable – for the warrant applicant to point out to the judicial officer how this item fits into the broader picture and the applicant’s theory of the case.
[37] Bien entendu, il faut rappeler que selon les principes énoncés dans Araujo, la dénonciation ne doit pas être indûment longue mais elle doit non seulement être complète et sincère, mais aussi claire et concise.
[38] Dans la décision R. c. Sanchez, le juge Hill énonce l’approche qui doit guider le tribunal dans son évaluation d'une dénonciation. Il écrit ce qui suit :
Accordingly, review by certiorari does not entitle the motions court to substitute its opinion as to whether a search warrant should have issued.
In addition, in the considering the facial validity of search warrants and search warrant informations, there exists a judicially created subset of review guidelines including the following:
1. Quality of drafting
Search warrants are statutorily authorized investigative aids issued most frequently before criminal proceedings have been instituted. Almost invariably a peace officer prepares the search warrant and information without the benefit of legal advice. The specificity and legal precision of drafting expected of pleadings at the trial stage is not the measure of quality required in a search warrant information […].
2. Review of the whole document
The appropriate approach for judicial review of a search warrant information is scrutiny of the whole of the document, not a limited focus upon an isolated passage or paragraph. Reference to all data within the four corners of the information provides the fair and reasonable context for the assertions in question […].
3. Drawing reasonable inferences
A search warrant information draftsperson or affiant is obliged to state investigative facts sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, that the things to be searched for will afford evidence, and, that the things in question will be discovered at a specified place. An issuing justice is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from stated facts and an informant is not obliged to underline the obvious […]. In this regard, some deference should be paid to the ability of a trained peace officer to draw inferences and make deductions which might well elude an untrained person […]. Probable cause does not arise however from purely conclusory narrative. A search warrant information is not a Crown brief and the affiant is not obliged to record every minute step taken in the course of the investigation […].
(Le soulignement est ajouté et les références sont omises)
[39] Finalement, dans un autre jugement, le juge Hill résume cette approche en ces termes:
The appropriate approach for judicial review of the facial validity of a search warrant and related ITO is scrutiny of the whole of the document, not a limited focus upon an isolated passage or paragraph. Reference to all data within the four corners of the information, a common sense review not line-by-line word-by-word dissection, provides the fair and reasonable context for the assertions in question.
[40] L'évaluation de la dénonciation exige une approche globale et non tatillonne.
[41] Comme l'explique la Cour suprême à l'égard d'une question différente, les termes de la dénonciation «doivent être examinés non seulement avec soin, mais aussi dans le contexte. Les termes employés se prêtent la plupart du temps à de multiples interprétations et qualifications. Cependant, l'examen en [révision] ne commande pas l'analyse de chaque mot, mais bien que l'on détermine si une erreur justifiant l'annulation se dégage des motifs dans leur ensemble. Il s'agit de déterminer le sens général et ordinaire de ceux-ci, et non de se livrer à l'analyse de leurs composantes linguistiques individuelles».
[42] En somme, il n'est pas approprié pour le Tribunal en révision de procéder à «une dissection ésotérique des mots employés».
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire