Une objection à l'admissibilité d'un élément de preuve doit avoir lieu avant que celle-ci soit administrée en preuve

R. v. Megill, 2021 ONCA 253

Lien vers la décision

[142]   About three decades ago, this court made it clear that objections to the admissibility of evidence tendered by a party must be made before or when the evidence is proffered. This principle applies whether the alleged impediment is a common law or statutory rule or a constitutional infringement: R. v. Kutynec (1992), 1992 CanLII 12755 (ON CA), 70 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 294-95. This is so that the litigants, among them the Crown, can know when they tender or consider the tender of evidence whether the opposite party objects to its reception. Were it otherwise, the orderly and fair operation of the criminal trial process would be compromised, and ex post facto exclusion renders the trial process unwieldy at best. In a jury trial, the process could become inoperative, with a mistrial the potential result: Kutynec, at pp. 295-96.