Même si la preuve d'identification oculaire d'un témoin ne soit pas certaine à 100 %, il s’agit d’une preuve pertinente à l’identification du tireur qui possède une certaine valeur probante

R. v. Kish, 2014 ONCA 181

Lien vers la décision

[53]      I start by noting that it is unhelpful generally in cross-examination to repeat a witnesses’ statement to them that had been made in chief and ask if they are “100 percent certain” of that statement. First, it is not necessary for a witness to be “100 percent certain” – that is not the criminal standard. Secondly, most reasonable persons would usually agree to a possibility they could be wrong or as the saying goes “anything is possible”. The trial judge was alive to this, stating in his reasons:

         Our reliance on the evidence of any eyewitness also recognizes that an eyewitness does not have to be certain in his or her identification. To the contrary, it is well-recognized that there is a weak link between the certainty of an eyewitness and the accuracy of that witness’ evidence: R. v. Hibbert, 2002 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 445 at para. 52. …

         Rather than detracting from their evidence, in my view, their willingness to acknowledge the reality that they might be wrong only serves to enhance the genuineness with which they gave their evidence. Ultimately, it is the trier of fact who must assess the evidence and decide what evidence to act on.