{"id":8887,"date":"2018-03-01T08:34:42","date_gmt":"2018-03-01T13:34:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=8887"},"modified":"2019-07-28T10:35:35","modified_gmt":"2019-07-28T14:35:35","slug":"recommendations-in-the-report-of-a-commission-of-inquiry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/recommendations-in-the-report-of-a-commission-of-inquiry\/","title":{"rendered":"There is no principle of positive law in Canada that recommendations in the report of a commission of inquiry have the force of law : Daoust c. R., 2018 QCCA 132\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Daoust c. R., 2018 QCCA 132\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Identification evidence and the Sophonow Report<\/h2>\n

[12]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The second ground of appeal can be dismissed summarily. The appellant submits that the trial judge should have rejected the identification evidence, because the photographic line-up did not comply with the standards recommended in the Sophonow Report<\/strong><\/a>.[6]<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

[13]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 There is no principle<\/strong> of positive law in Canada that recommendations in the report of a commission of inquiry have the force of law.\u00a0 A judge who does not follow them commits no error by that fact alone<\/strong> that warrants intervention by an appellate court.\u00a0 The Sophonow Report is one among several reports that offer guidelines on identification procedures.[7]<\/a> \u00a0The jurisprudence is clear that these recommendations are not legally binding in Quebec or anywhere else. They seek to improve investigative practices involving eyewitness identification by identifying best practices. It does not follow that identification evidence obtained in a manner that differs from these recommendations is inadmissible.[8]<\/a>The probative value of identification evidence is a question of weight.\u00a0 Justice Vauclair describes the utility of advisory recommendations in Joseph<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

[41]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 L\u2019appelant avance que la parade d\u2019identification ne rencontre pas en tout point les recommandations du Rapport Sophonow<\/em>. C\u2019est vrai. Ce rapport, fort pertinent et d\u2019une grande importance, formule des observations fondamentales sur les dangers de la preuve d\u2019identification et sugg\u00e8re des moyens pour les contrer. [\u2026] Toutefois, encore r\u00e9cemment dans l\u2019arr\u00eat Pelletier<\/em>, la Cour d\u2019appel de l\u2019Ontario rappelait que les recommandations du rapport n\u2019\u00e9tablissaient ni une proc\u00e9dure obligatoire ni un pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 l\u2019admissibilit\u00e9 d\u2019une preuve de parade photographique.<\/p>\n

[42]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Dans l\u2019arr\u00eat Beaulieu<\/em>, la Cour s\u2019est largement inspir\u00e9e des propositions faites par diverses commissions sur la preuve d\u2019identification pour en mesurer le caract\u00e8re \u00e9quitable. Bien que la Cour f\u00fbt divis\u00e9e sur le r\u00e9sultat, elle constate l\u2019importance d\u2019un processus rigoureux<\/strong> inspir\u00e9 des meilleures pratiques sans toutefois en faire une exigence gouvernant l\u2019admissibilit\u00e9 de la preuve. Dans la mesure o\u00f9 l\u2019appelant invite sp\u00e9cifiquement la Cour \u00e0 le faire, je suis d\u2019avis qu\u2019il n\u2019y pas lieu de cr\u00e9er une telle exigence, tout en rappelant qu\u2019une proc\u00e9dure d\u2019identification qui ne suit pas les meilleures pratiques est plus susceptible<\/strong> d\u2019interpeller l\u2019intervention des tribunaux d\u2019appel.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The second ground is without merit.<\/p>\n

The frailties of eyewitness identification are notorious<\/h2>\n

[14]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The frailties<\/strong> of eyewitness identification<\/a> are notorious.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Indeed, it is now a truism and a commonplace to say that the frailties of identification evidence are notorious<\/strong>.\u00a0 In this case the direct evidence of the eyewitness is unreliable<\/strong> and cannot prove identification.\u00a0 The indirect evidence is perhaps consistent with the eyewitness\u2019s evidence but it does not confirm or corroborate it.\u00a0 Taken alone, the circumstantial evidence<\/strong> in no way meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt or even any lesser standard of persuasion.\u00a0 This evidence could only prove identification if the sole reasonable inference, beyond reasonable doubt, is that the robber was Mr. Daoust.\u00a0 This is the standard set by the Supreme Court.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 This is not the only reasonable inference from the evidence of identification adduced in this case.\u00a0 It is some evidence that Mr. Daoust might have some characteristics similar to those of the robber but it is far from proof that Mr. Daoust was the robber in the pharmacy on 20 November 2012.\u00a0 Taken together, the direct and circumstantial evidence support the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that Mr. Daoust was the robber; but it cannot support proof of identification beyond reasonable doubt.\u00a0 A finding of guilt on this basis is unreasonable<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Daoust c. R., 2018 QCCA 132\u00a0 Identification evidence and the Sophonow Report [12]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The second ground of appeal can be dismissed summarily. The appellant submits that the trial judge should have rejected the identification evidence, because the photographic line-up did not comply with the standards recommended in the Sophonow Report.[6] [13]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":8888,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8887"}],"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=8887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8887\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8888"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8887"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=8887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}