Le poursuivant peut mettre de l’avant différentes théories de cause si celles-ci sont étayées par la preuve, sans pour autant brimer les droits de l’accusé, mais cette possibilité accordée au poursuivant de modifier sa théorie de cause en fonction de la preuve ne doit pas conduire à une injustice à l’accusé

R. v. Kelly, 2017 ONCA 920 

Lien vers la décision

[30] The Crown is not bound to prove its case according to any factual or legal theory. Liability for an offence charged is determined by an application of the law relating to parties to an offence, found primarily in s. 21 of the Criminal Code, to the facts as found by the jury or trial judge. Culpability depends on the evidence and the legal principles applicable to that evidence. The Crown is entitled to rely on any route to liability available [page250] on the evidence: see R. v. Pickton, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 198, [2010] S.C.J. No. 32, 2010 SCC 32, at para. 19; R. v. Khawaja  (2010), 103 O.R. (3d) 321, [2010] O.J. No. 5471, 2010 ONCA 862, 273 C.C.C. (3d) 415, at paras. 143-45, approved without reference to this point, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 555, [2012] S.C.J. No. 69, 2012 SCC 69; R. v. Ranger (2003), 2003 CanLII 32900 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (3d) 1, [2003] O.J. No. 3479 (C.A.), at pp. 41-42 O.R.; R. v. Pawluk, [2017] O.J. No. 5817, 2017 ONCA 863, at para. 29.

[31] The defence must be taken to know that liability depends on an application of the applicable legal principles to the evidence. There is nothing per se unfair in the Crown relying on different or alternate theories of liability, as long as each is rooted in the evidence. The argument that the Crown should be bound by the particular theory it advances is essentially an argument in favour of a formalistic pleadings-type approach to criminal justice, or perhaps a plea for the return of the now discredited "sporting theory" of criminal justice. The contemporary approach favours the adjudication of criminal allegations on their merits.

[32] The general rule that the Crown can rely on any legal basis of culpability available on the evidence is circumscribed by the overriding need to ensure trial fairness and, specifically, the accused's right to make full answer and defence: Ranger, at para. 133. There can be circumstances in which the defence, based on particulars provided by the Crown, specific representations made by the Crown, or the overall conduct of the trial, is justifiably led to believe that the accused's potential liability is limited to a specific factual or legal theory and conducts the defence accordingly. In those circumstances, the defence may be able to successfully argue that any departure from the specific basis of liability put forward, especially after the evidence is complete, would unfairly prejudice the accused's ability to make full answer and defence: Pawluk, at para. 30.