« Mémoire rafraîchissante » : différence entre les versions

La doctrine de la « mémoire actuelle ravivée » est la manière dont un témoin peut rafraîchir sa mémoire.

{{CanLIIR-N|Bengert et al (No. 5)|(1978), [1979] 1 WWR 472, (BCSC)}} aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/23lwp 1980 CanLII 321] (BCCA), 53 CCC (2d) 481{{TheCourtBCCA}} at 521-24 leave ref'd [1980] 2 SCR v.<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Wilks|1lph6|2005 MBCA 99 (CanLII)|201 CCC (3d) 11}}{{perMBCA|Philp and Freedman JA}}{{atL|1lph6|43}} ("Although no precise formula need be followed, the substance of what is dealt with in the following extract from [the book] Fundamentals of Trial Technique...")<br>

Afin d'empêcher le témoin d'exploiter cette règle pour « simplement régurgiter » son témoignage plutôt que de réellement rafraîchir sa mémoire, l'avocat de la partie adverse doit avoir accès à l'élément utilisé pour rafraîchir sa mémoire.<ref>

Le rafraîchissement de la mémoire est permis par la doctrine de la « mémoire présente ravivée » qui permet à un témoin déposant de rafraîchir sa mémoire.<ref> par exemple. {{supra1|KGB}} à 18

See also {{CanLIIRx|Gadzo|22z8l|2009 ONCJ 126 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Cuthbertson J}}</ref>

{{CanLIIRC-N|Fleming v Toronto R.W. Co|, [1911] OJ No 40}}{{perONSC|MacLaren JA}}{{At-|23}}  ("The law on the subject is, I consider, correctly laid down in Phipson on Evidence, 5th ed., p. 466, as follows: "A witness may refresh his memory by reference to any writing made or verified by himself concerning and contemporaneously with the facts to which he testifies. ... The writing may have been made either by the witness himself, or by others, providing in the latter case that it was read by him when the facts were fresh in his memory, and he knew the statement to be correct.") aff'd at 47 SCR 612, [http://canlii.ca/t/1tsqc 1913 CanLII 3] (SCC){{Plurality}}

Des opinions plus récentes suggèrent qu'un témoin « peut consulter n'importe quel document pendant son témoignage. Tant que le document suscite un souvenir réel de l'événement enregistré. »<ref>

see Mewett, Alan W., Witnesses (Toronto: Carswell, 1997 -- Rel. 2), pp. 13-2 and 13-3 ("one has a record of what was once remembered but is no longer remembered . . . [I]t is only where a present memory is actually revived that it can be said to be 'refreshed'")

e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Gwozdowski|g19r8|1972 CanLII 541 (ON CA)|2 OR 50}}{{perONCA|Gale CJ}}, citing Phipson ("A witness may refresh his memory by reference to any writing made or verified by himself concerning, and contemporaneously with, the facts to which he testifies; ")</ref>

eg. {{CanLIIRP|KGB|6gwj|1998 CanLII 7125 (ON CA)| (1998), 109 OAC 138, 125 CCC (3d) 61}}{{perONCA|Osborne JA}} at 18 ("I see nothing wrong with either witness reviewing her police statement before testifying. There is also nothing wrong with a defence counsel attempting to determine in cross-examination whether Mrs. D. or Mrs. McD. had a present memory of events about which she testified. What triggers recollection is not significant.")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Colangelo|1tf41|2007 ONCJ 489 (CanLII)|[2007] OJ No 4070}}{{perONCJ|Lampkin J}}{{atL|1tf41|29}} ("What triggers recollection is not significant")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Fliss|51vj|2002 SCC 16 (CanLII)|[2002] 1 SCR 535}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}("The stimulus may be hearsay, it may itself be largely inaccurate, it may be nothing more than the sight of someone who had been present or hearing some music that had played in the background")

{{CanLIIRPC|Cornerstone Co-operative Homes Inc v Spilchuk|1hz7n|2004 CanLII 32328 (ONSC)|[2004] OJ No 4094}}{{perONSC|Quinn J}}{{atL|1hz7n|13}} ("it makes no difference that the memorandum is not written by [the witness], for it is not the memorandum that is the evidence but the recollection of the witness")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|KGB|6gwj|1998 CanLII 7125 (ON CA)|125 CCC (3d) 61}}{{perONCA|Osborne JA}}{{atsL|6gwj|18| to 19}} (“ [19]  There is a danger in allowing the phrase "refreshing memory" to apply to those cases where the witness has no present memory, but is able to state that she accurately recorded a past event. In such cases, the witness has no present memory. The evidence, to the extent there is any, is the past record. When a witness refreshes her memory from some external source or event, she has a present memory, albeit one that has been refreshed; how reliable and truthful her recollection is, will be determined by the trier of fact, as happened here. “)<br>

Traditionnellement, l'avocat peut rafraîchir la mémoire d'un témoin qui oublie en raison du laps de temps ou de la « timidité ».<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (SCC)|[1956] SCR 191}}{{perSCC|Kellock J}}<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Biondo|237sk|2009 ONCJ 171 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Dechert J}}{{atsL|237sk|31| to 32}}<br>

{{CanLIIRPC|Cornerstone Co-operative Homes Inc v Spilchuk|1hz7n|2004 CanLII 32328 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Quinn J}}{{atL|1hz7n|16}} ("In my view, counsel cross-examining a witness is entitled to production of any document or notes (or item) that was reviewed (or examined) by the witness to refresh his or her memory before going into the box. It does not matter whether the act of refreshing occurred minutes, hours, days or months before testifying. Cross-examining counsel is entitled to production for the purpose of testing the reliability and truthfulness of the witness.")

{{CanLIIRP|Fast|26wr0|2009 BCSC 1671 (CanLII)|[2009] BCJ No 2421 (BCSC)}}{{perBCSC|N Brown J}}{{atsL|26wr0|29| to 31}}</ref>  

Les déclarations des témoins de la défense faites par des personnes non accusées ne sont généralement « pas » protégées par le secret professionnel de l'avocat.

{{CanLIIRPC|Cornerstone Co-operative Homes Inc v Spilchuk|1hz7n|2004 CanLII 32328 (ONSC)|[2004] OJ No 4094}}{{perONSC|Quinn J}}{{atL|1hz7n|13}} ("from some external source or event, she has a present memory, albeit one that has been refreshed; how reliable and truthful her recollection is, will be determined by the trier of fact")<Br>

L'avocat de la partie adverse peut contre-interroger sur le timing et la fiabilité du processus de rafraîchissement ainsi que se demander si le témoin « avait un souvenir présent des événements sur lesquels il a témoigné ».<ref>

La « chose » utilisée pour rafraîchir la mémoire ne doit pas être présentée comme pièce à conviction car elle ne constitue pas une preuve.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Coffin|22tqn|1956 CanLII 94 (SCC)|[1956] SCR 191}}{{Plurality}}{{atps|22-23}}</ref>

{{CanLIIR|PWM|hvg5r|2018 PECA 24 (CanLII)}} per Mitchell JA ("...it is a normal practice of counsel for both Crown and defence to have adult witnesses review the contents of any statements they may have made prior to giving viva voce evidence at trial.  There is nothing wrong with this practice...")

* [[Souvenirs passés enregistrés]]