{"id":10049,"date":"2018-06-06T11:02:40","date_gmt":"2018-06-06T15:02:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=10049"},"modified":"2019-07-27T17:18:29","modified_gmt":"2019-07-27T21:18:29","slug":"preuve-bonne-reputation-accuse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/preuve-bonne-reputation-accuse\/","title":{"rendered":"La preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation au soutien de la preuve offerte par l’accus\u00e9 : Brault Fortier c. R., 2018 QCCA 891"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brault Fortier c. R., 2018 QCCA 891<\/a><\/p>\n

Une preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation permet au jury de conclure que l\u2019accus\u00e9 n\u2019est pas le genre de personne \u00e0 commettre l\u2019infraction reproch\u00e9e ou que ses explications sont davantage cr\u00e9dibles en raison de cette bonne r\u00e9putation ou encore que cette bonne r\u00e9putation soul\u00e8ve un doute dans son esprit en consid\u00e9rant la version de l\u2019accus\u00e9 dans l\u2019ensemble de la preuve.<\/h2>\n

[<\/a>24]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Contrairement \u00e0 la position exprim\u00e9e par le minist\u00e8re public, une preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation permet au jury de conclure que l\u2019accus\u00e9 n\u2019est pas le genre de personne \u00e0 commettre l\u2019infraction reproch\u00e9e ou que ses explications sont davantage cr\u00e9dibles en raison de cette bonne r\u00e9putation ou encore que cette bonne r\u00e9putation soul\u00e8ve un doute dans son esprit en consid\u00e9rant la version de l\u2019accus\u00e9 dans l\u2019ensemble de la preuve.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>25]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 En 1991, dans l\u2019arr\u00eat R c. H. (C.W.)<\/i> (1991), 1991 CanLII 3956 (BC CA)<\/a>, 68 CCC (3d) 146<\/span><\/span>, la Cour d’appel de Colombie-Britannique a bien fait la distinction entre l\u2019inf\u00e9rence que sugg\u00e8re la preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation et l\u2019impact sur la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 si un accus\u00e9 t\u00e9moigne, deux \u00e9l\u00e9ments distincts. \u00c0 la page 158, le juge Wood \u00e9crit, pour la Cour\u00a0:<\/p>\n

\n

Where character evidence is called on behalf of an accused, it is essential that the jury be told the purpose to which such evidence may be relevant. A jury is entitled to infer from such evidence that the accused is not the type<\/strong> of person who would be likely to commit the crime(s) with which he or she is charged<\/u>. Such evidence, depending on the weight which they attribute to it on this issue of disposition or propensity, may itself be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused in the minds of the jury. Thus, they should be instructed that it is important that they consider such evidence, together with all of the other evidence, in determining whether the Crown has proved the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

Where the accused has testified, as he did in this case, the jury may also take character evidence into account when assessing his or her credibility<\/strong> as a witness.<\/u> This is because it is reasonable to consider, although it is not always the case, that a person of good character is more likely to tell the truth: see Regina v. McFadden<\/i> (1981), 1981 CanLII 494 (BC CA)<\/span><\/a>, 33 B.C.L.R. 96<\/span> at 103 (C.A.)<\/span>; Regina v. Elmosri<\/i>; and Regina v. Yadollahi<\/i> (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 478<\/span> at 479 (Ont.C.A.)<\/span>.<\/p>\n

As has already been noted, this was a case where credibility was an important issue; indeed, it may have been the most important issue in the case. The allegations by the complainant were met with a complete denial from the appellant. There was little evidence supporting either. In such circumstances it was especially important that the jury be made aware of the proper uses to which the character evidence called on behalf of the appellant could be put.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

[Je souligne.]<\/p>\n

[<\/a>26]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Le juge doit \u00e9galement attirer l\u2019attention sur la \u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9plique\u00a0\u00bb du minist\u00e8re public \u00e0 cette preuve, qu\u2019elle d\u00e9coule du contre-interrogatoire ou d\u2019une contre-preuve. Il doit notamment dire au jury qu\u2019il peut utiliser cette preuve uniquement pour d\u00e9cider si la preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation est cr\u00e9dible<\/strong>, et non<\/strong> pour conclure que l\u2019accus\u00e9 est plus susceptible d\u2019avoir commis l\u2019infraction.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>27]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00c0 la fois le mod\u00e8le de directives du Conseil canadien de la magistrature et le \u00ab\u00a0Watt\u2019s Specimen Jury Instructions (Criminal) (2015)\u00a0<\/i>\u00bb, sous leur rubrique traitant de la preuve de \u00ab\u00a0bonne moralit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb ou \u00ab\u00a0good character\u00a0\u00bb, sont explicites \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>28]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, c\u2019est au moyen du contre-interrogatoire que le minist\u00e8re public a tent\u00e9 de faire ombrage \u00e0 la preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation de l\u2019appelant. Des questions sur sa vitesse dans les moments pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents \u00e9taient l\u00e9gitimes, s\u2019agissant d\u2019un fait<\/i> qui pouvait mettre en doute la valeur du dossier de bon conducteur. D\u2019autres questions \u00e9taient plus litigieuses, dont celles portant sur le son du moteur de sa voiture ou les capacit\u00e9s sportives de celle-ci et le fait que l\u2019appelant aimait les deux. Implicitement, sinon explicitement, on invitait le jury \u00e0 inf\u00e9rer que le conducteur d\u2019une voiture sportive est plus susceptible qu\u2019une autre personne de conduire dangereusement.<\/p>\n

L\u2019attaque \u00e0 la bonne r\u00e9putation ne peut certainement pas faire appel \u00e0 des st\u00e9r\u00e9otypes comportementaux dont la consid\u00e9ration peut mener \u00e0 des erreurs de droit<\/h2>\n

[<\/a>29]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Il est certain que la preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation ouvre la porte \u00e0 une preuve de mauvaise r\u00e9putation, mais encore faut-il que cette derni\u00e8re soit admissible. Dans l\u2019arr\u00eat R. c. Gaballa<\/i> (1992), 1992 CanLII 3903 (QC CA)<\/a>, 74 C.C.C. (3d) 84<\/span><\/span>, \u00e0 la page 90, le juge Fish, pour la Cour, rappelait cette r\u00e8gle de longue date\u00a0:<\/p>\n

\n

Even when the prosecution is entitled to attack the character of an accused, it is limited in pursuing that purpose to evidence of (a) general reputation, (b) previous convictions (under s. 666<\/a> of the Criminal Code<\/a>), or (c) similar acts: McNamara (No.\u00a01)<\/i>, supra, p. 349; R. v. Manahan<\/i> (1990), 1990 ABCA 350 (CanLII)<\/a>, 61 C.C.C. (3d) 139 (Alta. C.A.)<\/span>, at p.\u00a0146<\/span>; R. v. Tierney<\/i> (1982), 70 C.C.C. (2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.)<\/span>, at p. 485<\/span>. See as well the venerable cases of Long<\/i> (1902), 5 C.C.C. 493 (Que. K.B., Appeal Side)<\/span><\/span> and Rowton<\/i> (1865), Le. & Ca. 520<\/span>, 10 Cox C.C. 25<\/span><\/span>. It is settled law that the Crown may not introduce as evidence of the accused’s bad character the personal opinion of a witness or particular allegations of misbehaviour that do not fall within the similar fact exception.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[<\/a>30]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 J\u2019ajoute que l\u2019attaque \u00e0 la bonne r\u00e9putation ne peut certainement pas faire appel \u00e0 des st\u00e9r\u00e9otypes<\/strong> comportementaux dont la consid\u00e9ration peut mener \u00e0 des erreurs de droit\u00a0: R. c. A.R.J.D.<\/i>, 2018 CSC 6 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>31]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Quoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est inutile de me prononcer sur l\u2019impact de ce contre-interrogatoire ou sur la directive correctrice qu\u2019il appelait sans doute de la part du juge. Ce sujet n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 dans les m\u00e9moires ou en plaidoirie.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Brault Fortier c. R., 2018 QCCA 891 Une preuve de bonne r\u00e9putation permet au jury de conclure que l\u2019accus\u00e9 n\u2019est pas le genre de personne \u00e0 commettre l\u2019infraction reproch\u00e9e ou que ses explications sont davantage cr\u00e9dibles en raison de cette bonne r\u00e9putation ou encore que cette bonne r\u00e9putation soul\u00e8ve un doute dans son esprit en […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10049"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"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=10049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10049"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=10049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}