Un témoin ordinaire peut être contre-interrogé sur toute conduite indigne

R. v. Cullen, 1989 CanLII 7241 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

When making the ruling it seems apparent that the trial judge had in mind the provisions of s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5. That section provides that a witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any offence. In R. v. Davison and DeRosie (1974), 20 C.C.C. (2d) 422, 6 O.R. (2d) 101 (S.C.), Martin J.A. giving the judgment of this court held that the narrow limitations upon cross-examination imposed by s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act applied to the cross-examination of an accused person but did not apply to the case of an ordinary witness. He made reference to the "well established principle that an ordinary witness may be cross-examined with respect to discreditable conduct ...". Reference should also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Titus v. The Queen (1983), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 321, 144 D.L.R. (3d) 577, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 259. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada held that a Crown witness could be cross-examined with respect to the circumstances in an outstanding indictment which had not come to trial by the time he testified. 

In my opinion those authorities show that, for the purpose of challenging a witness's credibility, cross-examination is permissible to demonstrate that a witness has been involved in discreditable conduct. Possession of burglar's tools is an offence that could contain an element of dishonesty. A person involved in such an offence is a person who could be considered to have been involved in discreditable conduct. In my opinion, therefore, the trial judge's restriction of defence counsel's cross-examination within the parameters of s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act deprived the defence of the opportunity to bring to the attention of the jury circumstances which may very well have assisted the jury in deciding what weight it would place upon the complainant's evidence.