La destruction d'un élément de preuve et les droits garantis par la Charte

R. v. Satkunananthan, 2001 CanLII 24061 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[73]         The governing principles where an accused claims that the failure to preserve evidence resulted in a breach of a Charter right were discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carosella. In Carosella, at para. 37 the Supreme Court made it clear that the inquiry into whether there was a breach of a Charter right resulting from the destruction of evidence was distinct from the question of remedy under s. 24(1):

The right to disclosure of material which meets the Stinchcombe threshold is one of the components of the right to make full answer and defence which in turn is a principle of fundamental justice embraced by s. 7 of the Charter. Breach of that obligation is a breach of the accused’s constitutional rights without the requirement of an additional showing of prejudice. To paraphrase Lamer C.J.C. in Tran, the breach of this principle of fundamental justice is in itself prejudicial. The requirement to show additional prejudice or actual prejudice relates to the remedy to be fashioned pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

[74]         And, at para. 52, the Court reiterated the test for granting a stay:

A judicial stay of proceedings has been recognized as being an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted in the “clearest of cases”. In her reasons in O’Connor, L’Heureux-Dubé J. stated (at para. 82) that:

It must always be remembered that a stay of proceedings is only appropriate “in the clearest of cases”, where the prejudice to the accused’s right to make full answer and defence cannot be remedied or where irreparable prejudice would be caused to the integrity of the judicial system if the prosecution were continued.

[75]         In R. v. La (1997), 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.), a decision released after the trial in this matter, the Supreme Court of Canada expanded upon the approach that should be adopted in cases of lost or destroyed evidence. As this court noted in R. v. Bero, 2000 CanLII 16956 (ON CA), [2000] O.J. No. 4199 at para. 30, this approach in La is conveniently summarized by Roscoe J.A. in R. v. F.C.B. (2000), 2000 NSCA 35 (CanLII), 142 C.C.C. (3d) 540 at 547‑48 (N.S.C.A.) as follows:

(1) The Crown has an obligation to disclose all relevant information in its possession.

(2) The Crown’s duty to disclose gives rise to a duty to preserve relevant evidence.

(3) There is no absolute right to have originals of documents produced. If the Crown no longer has original documents in its possession, it must explain their absence.

(4) If the explanation establishes that the evidence has not been destroyed or lost owing to unacceptable negligence, the duty to disclose has not been breached.

(5) In its determination of whether there is a satisfactory explanation by the Crown, the Court should consider the circumstances surrounding its loss, including whether the evidence was perceived to be relevant at the time it was lost and whether the police acted reasonably in attempting to preserve it. The more relevant the evidence, the more care that should be taken to preserve it.

(6) If the Crown does not establish that the [evidence] was not lost through unacceptable negligence, there has been a breach of the accused’s s. 7 Charter rights.

(7) In addition to a breach of s. 7 of the Charter, a failure to produce evidence may be found to be an abuse of process, if for example, the conduct leading to the destruction of the evidence was deliberately for the purpose of defeating the disclosure obligation.

(8) In either case, a s. 7 breach because of failure to disclose, or an abuse of process, a stay is the appropriate remedy, only if it is one of those rare cases that meets the criteria set out in O’Connor.

(9) Even if the Crown has shown that there was no unacceptable negligence resulting in the loss of evidence, in some extraordinary case, there may still be a s. 7 breach if the loss can be shown to be so prejudicial to the right to make a full answer and defence that it impairs the right to a fair trial. In this case, a stay may be an appropriate remedy.

(10) In order to assess the degree of prejudice resulting from the lost evidence, it is usually preferable to rule on the stay application after hearing all of the evidence.