Les principes élémentaires en matière d'identification selon la Cour d'Appel de l'Ontario

R. v. Pelletier, 2012 ONCA 566

Lien vers la décision

[89]      Several basic principles inform our decision on this ground of appeal. None require extended examination. 

[90]      First, countless authorities acknowledge the inherent frailties of eyewitness identification evidence, especially in cases that involve fleeting glimpses of unfamiliar persons in stressful circumstances: R. v. Miaponoose (1996), 1996 CanLII 1268 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 445 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 450-451.

[91]      Second, the weight to be assigned to evidence of eyewitnesses is a variable, not a constant. The weight of such evidence is for the trier of fact to determine and will vary according to the circumstances of individual cases: Miaponoose, at p. 452.

[92]      Third, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is not determined by or coextensive with the actual or apparent honesty of, or the confidence in correctness expressed by, the identification witness: R. v. Izzard (1990), 1990 CanLII 11055 (ON CA), 54 C.C.C. (3d) 252 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 255.

[93]      Fourth, as a general rule, in-dock identifications are entitled to little weight in the assessment of the adequacy of the prosecution’s proof on the issue of identity: Izzard, at p. 256; R. v. Williams (1982), 1982 CanLII 3729 (ON CA), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 235; R. v. A.(F.) (2004), 2004 CanLII 10491 (ON CA), 183 C.C.C. (3d) 518 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 47; and R. v. Nguyen (2000), 2000 CanLII 5742 (ON CA), 132 O.A.C. 354, at para. 41.   

[94]        Fifth, the recommendations of the Sophonow Inquiry about the manner in which photo line-ups should be conducted are persuasive tools to avoid wrongful convictions arising from faulty eyewitness identification, but they are neither conditions precedent to the admissibility of eyewitness testimony nor binding legal dictates for the assignment of weight: R. v. Goulart-Nelson, [2004] O.J. 4010 (C.A.), at para. 11; R. v. Grant, 2005 ABCA 222, (2005), 198 C.C.C. (3d) 376, at para. 6; and R. v. Doyle, 2007 BCCA 548, at paras. 12-13.

[95]      Finally, each case that includes eyewitness testimony as part of the prosecution’s case requires the trier of fact, mindful of its frailties both inherent and patent, to consider it in its entirety, along with and in the context of the balance of the evidence, in deciding whether an accused’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt: Goulart-Nelson, at para. 11; Grant, at para. 6; Doyle, at para. 13.