La communication de la preuve n'a pas à être entièrement complétée pour que la défense doive procéder à son option

R. v. N.N.M., 2006 CanLII 14957 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[37]         I disagree.  Where outstanding disclosure is alleged to explain a defence request for an adjournment, it is necessary to consider what documents were outstanding, when and in what circumstances they were requested, and if their disclosure is mandated by the Crown’s constitutional duty of disclosure.  Where the defence has made a late request for material with no potential relevance, any delay that results should not be attributed to the Crown.  A person charged with an offence should not be able to generate a basis for a s. 11(b) application by making a continuous stream of requests for materials that have no potential relevance, even if the Crown agrees to provide them.  Even when the Crown has clearly failed to make mandated disclosure, the defence is not necessarily entitled to refuse to proceed to the next step or to set a date for trial.  As this court stated in R. v. Kovacs-Tator (2004), 2004 CanLII 42923 (ON CA), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 91 at para. 47 (Ont. C.A.): “the Crown is not obliged to disclose every last bit of evidence before a trial date is set.”