*\u00c0 noter que la jurisprudence cit\u00e9e provient soit du Code criminel annot\u00e9 Cournoyer-Ouimet<\/em>, du Code criminel annot\u00e9 Dubois-Schneider ou encore de nos recherches personnelles.<\/em><\/p>\n De fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, voici les \u00e9l\u00e9ments que le minist\u00e8re public doit prouver relativement \u00e0 l’infraction de d\u00e9faut de se conformer \u00e0 une ordonnance de probation<\/strong> Actus reus<\/strong><\/p>\n L\u2019identification (le d\u00e9linquant);<\/p>\n Soit, selon le cas :<\/p>\n Omet;<\/p>\n Refuse;<\/p>\n De se conformer \u00e0 l’ordonnance de probation;<\/p>\n Voir 729(1) du\u00a0\u00a0C.r. relativement \u00e0 un bris de probation li\u00e9 \u00e0 la drogue.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00c0 laquelle il est soumis;<\/p>\n La preuve que l\u2019ordonnance est effectivement valide<\/p>\n Voir 732.1(6) du C.cr. : Il est entendu que la non-observation du para. 5 ne porte pas atteinte \u00e0 la validit\u00e9 de l\u2019ordonnace.<\/p>\n Mens rea<\/strong><\/p>\n Sans excuse raisonnable<\/p>\n La poursuite assume le fardeau de prouver hors de tout doute raisonnable que l’accus\u00e9 a fait d\u00e9faut \u00e0 la probation sans excuse raisonnable. L’incapacit\u00e9 de payer peut constituer une excuse raisonnable au d\u00e9faut de rembourser un montant d’argent. L’accus\u00e9 a droit au b\u00e9n\u00e9fice du doute sur cet \u00e9l\u00e9ment (R. v. Bird, 1999 SKQB 10<\/a>;\u00a0R<\/span>.\u00a0c<\/span>.\u00a0Grandbois<\/span>, [<\/span>1988<\/span>] A.Q. (Quicklaw) no 1049 (C.Q.Q.)<\/span>.<\/p>\n Ainsi, une fois que le minist\u00e8re public a prouv\u00e9, hors de tout doute raisonnable, l\u2019actus reus, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire la violation d\u2019une condition de l\u2019ordonnance de probation, l\u2019accus\u00e9 peut pr\u00e9senter la preuve d\u2019une excuse raisonnable. Une fois cette preuve administr\u00e9e, le fardeau retourne sur le minist\u00e8re public \u00e0 qui il appartient de prouver, hors de tout doute raisonnable que les \u00e9l\u00e9ments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par l\u2019accus\u00e9 ne peuvent constituer une excuse raisonnable. Ainsi s\u2019exprime l\u2019honorable E.G. Ewaschuk dans Criminal pleadings & Practice in Canada[3] :<\/p>\n In a particular case, an accused may bear the initial “evidential burden” of eliciting evidence in respect of a “specific issue”, e.g., a reasonable excuse, whereas the Crown bears the ultimate “legal or persuasive burden” of rebutting the issue where the accused has elicited evidence capable of constituting a “reasonable excuse”. The Crown must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt the invalidity of the excuse offered by the defendant. \u2026<\/p>\n (\u2026)<\/p>\n The Crown bears the onus of disproving or negativing any form of defence, excuse or justification, other than insanity or automatism, \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d. \u2026<\/p>\n (\u2026)<\/p>\n In respect of summary conviction prosecutions, the accused bears an “evidential or secondary burden” of proving that an “exeption, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification” prescribed by law operates in his or her favour. The accused must produce sufficient evidence that is “capable of constituting” an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification. In turn, the Crown bears the “legal or persuasive burden” of disproving the matter, in rebuttal, beyond a reasonable doubt (<\/i>Gigu\u00e8re c. R.<\/i>, 2011 QCCS 5446<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" D\u00e9faut de se conformer \u00e0 une ordonnance (733.1 C.cr. – Bris de probation) *\u00c0 noter que la jurisprudence cit\u00e9e provient soit du Code criminel annot\u00e9 Cournoyer-Ouimet, du Code criminel annot\u00e9 Dubois-Schneider ou encore de nos recherches personnelles. De fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, voici les \u00e9l\u00e9ments que le minist\u00e8re public doit prouver relativement \u00e0 l’infraction de d\u00e9faut de […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":68,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6293"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6293\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n