La transmission de l'argumentaire de la partie adverse à un témoin clé aux fins de la préparation de son témoignage est à éviter, surtout si elle met en relief des attaques à sa crédibilité, mais elle n'est pas absolument interdite

R. v. Paris, 2006 CanLII 11655 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[24]         Lastly it has been argued that Christensen’s affidavit should be discounted entirely and he found to be not credible. It seems that the Crown supplied Christensen with a copy of the appellant’s factum which was going to be used to argue the Garofoli application. The factum was not filed on this appeal but I am told it detailed the alleged factual errors in Christensen’s affidavit and gave him a “heads up” as it were to the thrust of the appellants’ proposed cross-examination. The appellants argue it was improper for Crown counsel to provide the main witness for the Crown with the factum.

[25]         It would have been preferable had Crown counsel not supplied the factum to the main witness, particularly on the facts here where it would be argued that the factual inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the witness.

[26]         I would decline, however, to make a blanket ruling of the type requested by counsel for the appellants that it is never appropriate for counsel to supply a witness with the opposite party’s factum.