La doctrine du document en possession de l'accusé et les inférences que peut en tirer le juge des faits

R. v. Ansari, 2015 ONCA 575

Lien vers la décision

[116]   The departure letters were found in the appellant’s bedroom, on the night table beside his bed. That he was their author is unassailable. It is a reasonable inference that these letters, as well as the other contents in his bedroom, were in his possession. It is well-settled that documents that are or have been in the possession of a party are generally admissible against that party as original (circumstantial) evidence of their contents and of the party’s connection to, or complicity in, the transactions to which they relate: R. v. Turlon (1989), 1989 CanLII 7206 (ON CA), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 186 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 190; R. v. Black, 2014 BCCA 192, 309 C.C.C. (3d) 484, at para. 29; Phipson on Evidence, 18th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), at pp. 1326-1327. Possession of the letters is evidence of the appellant’s state of mind (the intention to fight for Allah) which, in turn, tends to establish his motive for joining and his knowledge of the nature of the organization and the activities in which he participated and to which he contributed.