R. c. Vu, [2013] 3 RCS 657, 2013 CSC 60 (CanLII)
Lien vers la décision
[70] Cela dit, la fouille des ordinateurs en l’espèce présente toutefois deux aspects assez troublants. Premièrement, le sergent Wilde a admis dans son témoignage qu’il avait intentionnellement omis de prendre des notes durant cette fouille afin de ne pas avoir à témoigner sur les détails de celle‑ci. Il s’agit là d’une conduite clairement répréhensible, qui ne saurait être tolérée. Bien que je ne décide pas, en l’espèce, que de telles notes sont requises sur le plan constitutionnel, les policiers devraient à mon avis prendre des notes sur la façon dont la fouille est effectuée, sauf en cas de situations pressantes ou inhabituelles. La prise de notes est particulièrement souhaitable lors de la fouille d’ordinateurs, étant donné que les policiers pourraient ne pas être en mesure de se rappeler en détail comment ils y ont procédé. Deuxièmement, tout comme la juge de première instance, je suis préoccupé par le fait que le sergent Wilde a obtenu des éléments de preuve en fouillant, après l’expiration de l’ordonnance de détention, l’un des ordinateurs qui avaient été saisis. Cette fouille visait toutefois l’ordinateur de sécurité, et la preuve ainsi recueillie n’est pas contestée en vertu du par. 24(2), comme je l’ai expliqué précédemment.
mercredi 17 septembre 2014
L'objectif de la prise de notes par les policiers (état du droit quant à la question des notes personnelles des policiers)
R. v. Bailey, 2005 ABPC 61 (CanLII)
Purpose of Police Notes - Is it beyond refreshing police officer’s memory?
[28] In The Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions, Attorney General of Ontario, 1993, the Honourable G. Arthur Martin sets forth recommendation number 26 with respect to Disclosure. It reads as follows:
“The Committee recommends that the Attorney General request that the Solicitor General issue a statement to all police officers emphasizing the importance of taking careful, accurate, and contemporaneous notes during their investigations. (The statement should emphasize that disclosure requirements after Stinchcombe cannot be thwarted by making less accurate or less comprehensive notes.)”
[29] The Martin Committee[1], which included senior police officers, stated at p. 150 of its Report:
“A police officer investigating a criminal offence is bound to act diligently and fairly, and is bound to pursue all leads that a competent investigator would pursue, including leads that seem likely to uncover relevant information favourable to the person being investigated. Subsequently, full disclosure requires that everything uncovered during that investigation be made available to the defence, unless it is clearly irrelevant, or otherwise properly withheld pursuant to the principles enunciated in Stinchcombe, supra.”
[30] The Martin Committee at pp. 151-153 also made these observations:
(1) “...after Stinchcombe, the disclosure of police notes has ceased to be controversial”;
(2) an investigator’s notes are often the most immediate, accurate and important source of evidence;
(3) the importance of careful note-taking cannot be overemphasized;
(4) Stinchcombe and fairness require that it would be improper to put less in a notebook than would normally be the case, but for disclosure.
[31] The importance of careful note-taking cannot be overemphasized, as stated in the Martin Committee observations. Officers’ notes are related to the court receiving accurate evidence from police officers. In addition, officers are not permitted to thwart the requirements to disclose evidence by making less accurate or less comprehensive notes.
[32] The Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation Sixth Edition by The Honourable Roger E. Salhany, at page 214 states as follows:
“ The importance of preparing complete, detailed and comprehensive notes will rarely be appreciated by the officer until he is called upon days, possibly weeks, maybe months or even years later to testify as to his recollection of the events of his investigation.
- - - - -
Why is it important that notes be recorded as soon as possible after an event? It is simply because memory becomes notoriously unreliable as time passes and other investigations and events take place.
- - - -
Why is it necessary that everything observed by the officer and important to the investigation be recorded? As I said earlier, memory fades with the passage of time. If the officer has any recollection at trial, it will be a general one, not specific at details. This means that the notes become crucial to the accuracy of the officer’s evidence. If his notes are not comprehensive, then it is impossible for him to satisfy the court that his evidence is accurate and that he has not missed something that was important.”
[33] In The Police Manual Of Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation, Eighth Edition (2002), by The Honourable Roger E. Salhany, the importance of making accurate notes, meaning complete, detailed and comprehensive notes, is also emphasized. Once again however, the purpose of doing so is to permit the officer to give accurate testimony in court. There is no mention of the purpose of the notes being anything other than to refresh the officer’s memory and provide accurate evidence to the court. At page 265, the document remarks that it is understandable for an officer to remember something about an incident that he or she forgot to record. This can happen after the notes have been prepared and the document states as follows on this subject:
“A judge can identify with the officer who has suddenly remembered something after the event. That can happen to anyone. The judge may or may not give less weight to the evidence because a note was recorded after the original notes were prepared, but it will only go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”
The document therefore anticipates officers being able to add to their notes because something about the incident is recalled at a later time. This can also happen during testimony at trial as a result of cross-examination.
[34] The need for officers to make complete and accurate notes is also underlined in The Principles of Law Enforcement Report Writing, Second Edition (2004), by Gino Arcaro of Niagara College. At page 15 the following remarks are made in relation to an officer’s notes:
“ It is impossible to quantify the number of observations made by and reported to a police officer during a career. The quantity of observations, combined with the imperfection of human memory, presents enormous challenges when trying to recall observations during court testimony and at other significant intervals during the investigation and prosecution stages.
A notebook is a solution to the recall problem. A notebook is, quite simply, bound pocket sized lined paper, but its importance cannot be understated. It represents an officer’s memory. It facilitates recall when an officer is required to communicate observations at various times in the future, including several months or years after the observations are made.
- - - - -
The concepts of memory and recall are a phenomenon significant to note taking, witness interviews and court testimony. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has cautioned us about the problems associated with memory decay and the need for all witnesses, both police and citizens, to use means of refreshing memory. In R. v. Coffin (1956) the SCC identified time lapse and stress as contributory factors that cause forgetfulness. In R. v. Fliss (1992), the SCC recognized that even individuals ‘blessed with prodigious memory’ will not have total recall of lengthy conversations with accused persons without the assistance of some aid that refreshes memory.”
[35] The entire thrust of these law enforcement texts and reports, with regard to the purpose of the police notes, has to do with assisting the officer to recall events so that accurate testimony can be given in court. These text and reports recognize the frailty of an officer’s memory months later when required to testify in court. This is especially true when the volume of cases an officer deals with as part of his daily duties is considered.
Legal authorities regarding police notes and analysis
[36] In the decision of R. v. Murphy [2001] S.J. No. 582 Saskatchewan PC, the Court addressed the issue of incomplete officers’ notes. At paragraphs 84 and 85 the Court stated as follows:
“ In the absence of videotape evidence, it is obvious that notes should be as extensive as is reasonable. It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect an officer to make notes which will anticipate every question defence counsel may have at trial - but to the extent notes are sketchy or deficient on aspects of the case which are critical, or which are worthy of remark because they are out of the ordinary, the Court may in the appropriate circumstances place less weight on the notemaker’s viva voce evidence where cross-examination or other evidence suggests that the notemaker is careless about or unable to reconcile testimonial discrepancies.
I do not wish to suggest that notes, comprehensive or otherwise, are in any sense of supervening importance, or that because an officer’s testimony at trial differs from or adds to the notes, the officer’s evidence is thereby necessarily suspect. As is clear from the case law, each case depends on the Court’s view of all the evidence and circumstances.”
[37] In the case before me it cannot be said the officer ’s notes, while brief, are so sketchy or deficient on aspects of the case that are critical, as to cause her evidence to be suspect. She has left out two indicia of impairment, but has included a number of other indicia of impairment which are arguably more significant than those omitted. She has also given evidence of an extensive and erratic driving pattern, and the unique aspect of the violence of the accused which prompts her memory of this specific case.
[38] In the decision of R. v. Marchildon [2003] S.J. No. 426 Saskatchewan the court further addressed the duty of an officer to make notes. At paragraph 15 the court stated the following:
“ To a considerable extent, it is in my view unreasonable for a court to micromanage how an officer is to deal with recording events which arise in the course of unplanned dealings with citizens which are often unpredictable and may be potentially dangerous. While I am aware that some police cars in Saskatchewan are now equipped with video cameras, it is in most cases entirely unrealistic to expect the officer to be able to provide a verbatim account of what happens as he approaches each vehicle he stops. While I consider that there is a ordinarily a requirement that the officer prepare a timely statement as to his recollection of events, it is to be expected that there may be some happenings which the officer may not have in his notes or which he will not remember or consider significant when preparing documentation.”
[39] In the decision R. v. Domski [2002] O. J. No. 3544, Mr. Justice Allen of the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, Ontario held that police officers have a duty to keep accurate records of what occurred. He remarked that Peel Regional Police Officers regard the purpose of their notes as being to refresh their memory in court and they believe they are implicitly not to disclose to anybody beforehand what happened. Justice Allen stated the following:
“...Whoever bears the onus for establishing certain things in Charter applications, the police have, I think a statutory duty, but certainly a duty in terms of what goes on in court of keeping a proper record of what occurs. ... Whoever has the onus, the police have the control over the record keeping as it relates to their inter-reactions with members of the public. It does not enhance the prosecution for a police officer to come to court and be relying on his memory, if not his wishful thinking for the bulk of his evidence on crucial issues.”
[40] In that case the accused was stopped by the police just after leaving a bar at closing time. He smelled of alcohol and gave the police officer misleading information about his alcohol consumption. The police officer failed to turn his mind to whether there was mouth alcohol and did not keep complete and legible notes of the events and conversations with Domski. The breath samples were excluded on the basis of a Section 8 breach of the accused’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case is not entirely clear with respect to the contents of the officer’s notes, but the court comments repeatedly that the notes are such that they “leave a huge amount to be desired”.
[41] In the case of R. v. Lavalee 1999 ABPC 148 (CanLII), 1999 ABPC 148, Judge Sully dealt with a case which turned on, in part, the accused unequivocally waiving his right to legal counsel. The officer’s notes stated “Subject states he has attempt to contact his wife, looking for lawyer, too many to choose from he states”. At trial, the officer indicated that after the accused told him there were too many lawyers to choose from, he, the officer, went on to ask the accused if he wished to continue contacting legal counsel, to which the accused replied “No”. However, none of this additional conversation was supported by notes and the court was not satisfied this portion of the discussion in fact occurred.
Conclusion with respect to whether incomplete notes violate Sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter
[42] It is clear from credible legal texts and reports that there is a duty upon officers to take complete, accurate and comprehensive notes. The primary reasons for this is to enable an officer to give accurate testimony in court, given the fact they may be called upon to provide this evidence weeks, months or even years after the incident. Evidence not contained in officers’ notes may be suspect or given less weight on the basis of credibility, not Charter breach.
mardi 16 septembre 2014
L'ORDONNANCE DE COMMUNICATION
Il s'agit d'un processus de substitution à la perquisition pour les cas lui donnant ouverture.
Le qui, le quand et le comment
L'ordonnance de communication précise le moment, le lieu et la forme de la communication1 (originaux de documents ou copies certifiées conformes par affidavit, données, documents préparés à partir de données ou de documents existants, ou renseignements bancaires)2 ainsi que la personne à qui elle est faite.Le secret professionnel
À la suite d'une dénonciation par écrit faite sous serment et présentée ex parte, l'ordonnance est émise par un juge de paix ou par un juge, sous certaines conditions3. Parmi celles-ci se trouve la protection des communications privilégiées entre l'avocat et son client4.Les dispositions de l'article 487.015 (1) prévoient la possibilité pour la personne visée par l'ordonnance de demander par écrit au juge de l'exempter de l'obligation de communiquer la totalité ou une partie des documents, données ou renseignements demandés. Cette demande doit être présentée avant l'expiration de l'ordonnance5, et doit être précédée d'un préavis d'intention adressé à la personne à laquelle la communication doit être faite dans les 30 jours suivant celui où l'ordonnance est rendue6.
Une telle demande d'exemption a pour effet de suspendre l'exécution de l'ordonnance de communication à l'égard des documents, données ou renseignements visés par la demande d'exemption jusqu'à ce qu'une décision définitive soit rendue sur celle-ci7.
L'exemption peut être accordée si le juge est convaincu que la communication révélerait des renseignements protégés par le privilège du secret professionnel ou qu'il serait déraisonnable d'obliger la communication, ou encore que les documents, données ou renseignements ne sont ni en possession de l'intéressé ni à sa disposition.
Pas de Ve Amendement à l'américaine…
Le fait que la communication des renseignements demandés peut tendre à incriminer l'intéressé ou à l'exposer à quelque procédure ou pénalité ne le dispense pas de se conformer à l'ordonnance8.Qui plus est, le défaut de se conformer à l'ordonnance de communication constitue une infraction passible, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, d'une amende pouvant atteindre 250 000 $ et/ou jusqu'à six mois d'emprisonnement9.
Silence = devoir de procéder
Les nouvelles dispositions ne touchent pas l'obligation incombant à l'avocat de s'assurer de l'application des règles en matière de communications privilégiées et de secret professionnel.Mais que doit faire l'avocat qui reçoit une ordonnance de communication ? Tout d'abord, il doit en aviser son client et lui exposer clairement l'objet de cette ordonnance. Il devra également l'informer du mécanisme relatif à l'exemption.
À moins que le client y renonce, préférablement par écrit, l'avocat devra donner le préavis et déposer, dans les délais requis, une demande d'exemption. Dans l'éventualité où il lui serait impossible de joindre son client dans le délai imparti, l'avocat devra, par mesure de prudence et compte tenu de ses obligations déontologiques, déposer une demande d'exemption suivant la procédure prescrite.
Les dispositions actuelles confient à l'avocat (ou à la personne visée) la responsabilité d'amorcer les procédures d'exemption dès qu'un cas le justifie. Dans les circonstances, l'avocat devra être vigilant sur réception d'une ordonnance de communication afin de préserver les droits de son client.
En cas de doute sur les procédures à suivre ou pour obtenir de l'information et des conseils, l'avocat est invité à communiquer avec le bureau du Syndic du Barreau du Québec au (514) 954-3438 ou au 1 800 361-8495, poste 3438.
Tiré de : http://www.barreau.qc.ca/pdf/journal/vol37/no2/ordonnance.html
Nicole Dufour, avocate du Service de recherche et de législation du Barreau du Québec
Le principe de stabilité des décisions judiciaires est un élément central de la saine administration de la justice et d’un système juridique ordonné
Québec (Procureur général) c. Laroche, [2002] 3 RCS 708, 2002 CSC 72 (CanLII)
Lien vers la décision
76 Des exceptions limitées et contrôlées par les tribunaux à l’interdiction des contestations incidentes ne portent pas atteinte au principe de stabilité des décisions judiciaires qui demeure un élément central d’une saine administration de la justice et d’un système juridique ordonné. Leur reconnaissance permet par contre de préserver également l’intégrité de la règle de droit fondamentale, en assurant son respect dans des situations où des droits constitutionnels seraient autrement lésés de façon grave, à défaut d’un tel remède.
Lien vers la décision
76 Des exceptions limitées et contrôlées par les tribunaux à l’interdiction des contestations incidentes ne portent pas atteinte au principe de stabilité des décisions judiciaires qui demeure un élément central d’une saine administration de la justice et d’un système juridique ordonné. Leur reconnaissance permet par contre de préserver également l’intégrité de la règle de droit fondamentale, en assurant son respect dans des situations où des droits constitutionnels seraient autrement lésés de façon grave, à défaut d’un tel remède.
Ce que constitue une attaque collatérale
R. v. J.L.S., 2000 BCSC 1784 (CanLII)
[7] Although this issue was not raised in argument before me, the proceedings that are now being appealed appear to be a collateral attack on the order of the Youth Court Judge which was made on January 8, 1999. It is trite law, however, that the respondent in this case may not collaterally attack the validity of the order made on January 8, 1999, after failing to avail herself of the appeal mechanisms provided. In R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd 1998 CanLII 820 (SCC), (1998), 123 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.) L’Heureux-Dubé J., for the Court, stated at paras. 2-3:
It should be noted at the outset that this Court has already spoken on the possibility of collateral attacks on the validity of court orders (R. v. Wilson, 1983 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594, 9 C.C.C. (3d) 97; R. v. Litchfield, 1993 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; R. v. Sarson, 1996 CanLII 200 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223. In Litchfield,supra., at p. 349, Iacobucci J. stated the basis for the rule against collateral attacks on court orders as follows:
The rationale behind the rule is powerful: the rule seeks to maintain the rule of law and to preserve the repute of the administration of justice. To allow parties to govern their affairs according to their perception of matters such as the jurisdiction of the court issuing the order would result in uncertainty. Further, “the orderly and functional administration of justice” requires that court orders be considered final and binding unless they are reversed on appeal (R. v. Pastro [1988 CanLII 214 (SK CA), (1988), 42 C.C.C. (3d) 485 (Sask.C.A.)], at p. 497.
For this reason, it is also settled that, as a general rule, a superior court will not be justified in reviewing the validity of a court order in respect of which a contempt charge has been laid – see inter alia: R. v. Domm 1996 CanLII 1331 (ON CA), (1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 540, 111 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (C.A.); leave to appeal refused, [1997] 2 S.C.R. viii, 114 C.C.C. (3d) vi; Every-woman’s Health Centre Society (1988) v. Bridges 1990 CanLII 5409 (BC CA), (1990), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 62 C.C.C. (3d) 455, 78 D.L.R. (4th) 529 (C.A.).
La règle interdisant les attaques collatérales empêche le juge du procès de réviser les ordonnances rendues par des juges d'une juridiction concurrente
R. c. O'Connor, [1995] 4 RCS 411, 1995 CanLII 51 (CSC)
Lien vers la décision
Lien vers la décision
179 Tout d'abord, de telles demandes devraient être entendues par le juge du procès plutôt que par un juge chargé d'entendre les requêtes préalables au procès. Dans l'arrêt R. c. Litchfield, 1993 CanLII 44 (CSC), [1993] 4 R.C.S. 333, notre Cour a eu l'occasion de décider si une ordonnance de séparation des chefs d'accusation, rendue avant le procès par un juge autre que le juge du procès, pouvait être révisée. Bien qu'elle ait fait remarquer que la règle interdisant les attaques collatérales empêchait le juge du procès de réviser les ordonnances rendues par des juges d'une juridiction concurrente, elle a conclu que la philosophie sous-jacente à la règle interdisant les attaques collatérales ne s'appliquait pas dans le cas d'une ordonnance de division et de séparation des chefs d'accusation rendue avant le procès. Ce qui est toutefois plus important en ce qui nous concerne, c'est que la Cour a ensuite examiné les raisons pratiques pour lesquelles il était très souhaitable que seul le juge du procès rende des ordonnances de cette nature (à la p. 353):
Non seulement le juge du procès est-il mieux placé pour évaluer l'effet de la séparation demandée sur la conduite du procès, mais limiter au juge du procès les ordonnances de séparation des chefs d'accusation permet d'éviter le dédoublement des efforts déployés pour acquérir une connaissance du dossier suffisante pour déterminer si les intérêts de la justice exigent une telle ordonnance.
Les ordonnances de production des dossiers privés en la possession de tiers sont, à mon avis, régies par une logique semblable.
L'attaque collatérale
2 On notera au départ que notre Cour s’est déjà exprimée sur la possibilité d’attaquer de façon incidente la validité d’ordonnances judiciaires (Wilson c. La Reine, 1983 CanLII 35 (CSC), [1983] 2 R.C.S. 594; R. c. Litchfield, 1993 CanLII 44 (CSC), [1993] 4 R.C.S. 333; R. c. Sarson, 1996 CanLII 200 (CSC), [1996] 2 R.C.S. 223). Dans l’affaire Litchfield, à la p. 349, le juge Iacobucci exprimait en ces termes le fondement de la règle empêchant les contestations incidentes à l’encontre d’ordonnances judiciaires:
La règle repose sur un solide raisonnement: elle vise à maintenir la primauté du droit et à préserver la considération dont jouit l’administration de la justice. L’incertitude résulterait si on permettait aux parties de gérer leurs affaires suivant la perception qu’ils ont de questions comme la compétence du tribunal qui rend l’ordonnance. De plus, [TRADUCTION] «l’administration ordonnée et pratique de la justice» exige que les ordonnances judiciaires soient considérées comme définitives et ayant force exécutoire à moins d’être annulées en appel (R. c. Pastro [1988 CanLII 214 (SK CA), (1988), 42 C.C.C. (3d) 485 (C.A. Sask.)], à la p. 497).
S'abonner à :
Messages (Atom)