Il est inapproprié de ''faire le procès du style de vie'' de l'accusé lors de son contre-interrogatoire, ainsi que de lui demander de commenter la crédibilité des témoins à charge

R. v. Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[26] I agree with the appellant's contention that the cross- examination was improper. Crown counsel, of course, is entitled to conduct a vigorous cross-examination of an accused and, at times, permissible lines of inquiry will necessarily reflect adversely on the appellant's character. However, in this case, when the cross-examination is considered in the context of the issues in the case, it is my view that Crown counsel transgressed the limits of relevance in questioning the appellant generally on his lifestyle, from the manner of his dress to the fulfillment of his fiscal responsibilities. The appellant was not on trial for his general lifestyle and it was unfair to place him in a position where he had to defend against vague and irrelevant suggestions of improper conduct.

[27] Further, this court has held repeatedly that it is improper to call upon an accused to comment on the credibility of his accusers: see, for example, R. v. Cole, [1999] O.J. No. 1647 (C.A.); R. v. F. (A.) (1996), 1996 CanLII 10222 (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 470, 1 C.R. (5th) 382 (C.A.); R. v. Masse (2000), 2000 CanLII 5755 (ON CA), 134 O.A.C. 79 (C.A.); R. v. Vandenberghe (1995), 1995 CanLII 1439 (ON CA), 96 C.C.C. (3d) 371 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. S. (W.) (1994), 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), 18 O.R. (3d) 509, 90 C.C.C. (3d) 242 (C.A.). Crown counsel did this repeatedly during the course of the cross-examination. Questions of this nature suggest that there is some onus on an accused person to provide a motive for the Crown witness' testimony and, as such, they undermine the presumption of innocence.