La preuve du casier criminel d'un accusé peut être faite uniquement pour certaines fins, dont pour l'appréciation de sa crédibilité

R v Strathdee, 2020 ABCA 306

Lien vers la décision

[46]           Under s 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C‑5 [CEA], a witness can be questioned on whether they have been convicted of an offence. However, in cross-examining an accused on their criminal record, Crown counsel is only entitled to ask about the name of the crime, the substance and effect of the indictment, the place of the conviction and the penalty; they are not entitled to cross-examine the accused about the details of the offence: R v Laurier (1983), 1 OAC 128, [1983] OJ No 195 (QL) at para 10 (Ont CA); R v Bricker, 1994 CanLII 630 (ON CA), [1994] OJ No 1765 (QL) at para 20, 90 CCC (3d) 268 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 24264 (3 November 1994); see also R v Ménard, 1996 CanLII 685 (ON CA), [1996] OJ No 2453 at paras 31-33 (QL), 108 CCC (3d) 424 (Ont CA), aff’d 1998 CanLII 790 (SCC), [1998] 2 SCR 109 at para 32. That is, questioning cannot extend to the conduct on which the conviction was based: R v MC, 2019 ONCA 502 at para 55 [MC]; R v Corbett, 1988 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 670 at 696 [Corbett].

 

[47]           Moreover, evidence of a criminal record can only be used for certain purposes. A prior record is admissible for the purpose of assessing a witness’ credibility, the theory behind s 12 of the CEA being that “the character of the witness, as evidenced by the prior conviction or convictions, is a relevant fact in assessing the testimonial reliability of the witness”: R v Stratton (1978), 1978 CanLII 1644 (ON CA), 42 CCC (2d) 449 at 461 (Ont CA), cited in Corbett at 685-686. However, it is only one factor when assessing credibility: the fact an accused has a record does not necessarily mean he or she should not be believed and does not create a presumption in that regard: Corbett at 685, 687. Nor can a criminal record be used to establish that the accused has a propensity to commit the kind of offence for which he or she is charged or that the accused is more likely to have done so in the present case: R v Patrick, 1994 CanLII 6250, 94 CCC (3d) 571 at 572‑573 (Que CA); R v Marini, 2017 ONCA 46 at para 20. A trial judge is presumed to know this: R v Dixon, 2018 ONCA 949 at para 26.