Il est certain que la familiarité entre le témoin et l’accusé peut être un facteur qui rehausse la fiabilité de l’identification: plus il y a eu d’interactions entre le témoin et l’accusé par le passé, plus la reconnaissance sera fiable

R. v. Bob, 2008 BCCA 485

Lien vers la décision

[13]           The difficulty he faces, however, is that this was a case of recognition, rather than identification.  There is a significant difference between cases in which a witness is asked to identify a stranger never seen by him before the offence, and cases in which a witness recognizes a person previously known to her.  While caution must still be taken to ensure that the evidence is sufficient to prove identity, recognition evidence is generally considered to be more reliable and to carry more weight than identification evidence: R. v. Aburto, 2008 BCCA 78; R. v. Bardales (1995), 1995 CanLII 2518 (BC CA), 101 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (B.C.C.A.), aff’d 1996 CanLII 213 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R 461, 107 C.C.C. (3d) 194.