« Preuve orale sur l'histoire autochtone » : différence entre les versions

Dernière version du 5 novembre 2024 à 12:39

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois Janvier 2015. (Rev. # 31372)

n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

Principes généraux

Les lois sur la preuve doivent tenir compte des témoignages oraux des peuples autochtones afin de leur donner un [TRADUCTION] « pied d’égalité » avec d’autres types de preuves historiques, comme la documentation historique.^[1] L'évaluation de l'acceptation de la preuve se fait au cas par cas.^[2]

L'évaluation de la fiabilité ne doit pas se faire selon une norme communautaire, mais doit être objective.^[3] Une preuve qui [TRADUCTION] « ne suscite que des soupçons, des suppositions ou des conjectures est, bien entendu, insuffisante. »^[4]

↑ Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (CSC), [1997] 3 RCS 1010 at para 87 ( [TRADUCTION] « Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents. This is a long-standing practice in the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples ... given that most aboriginal societies “did not keep written records”, the failure to do so would “impose an impossible burden of proof” on aboriginal peoples, and “render nugatory” any rights that they have... » )
↑ , ibid. au para 87
↑ Canada c. Benoit, 2003 CAF 236 (CanLII) le juge Nadon
↑ , ibid. at para 25

[1] Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (CSC), [1997] 3 RCS 1010 at para 87 ( [TRADUCTION] « Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents. This is a long-standing practice in the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples ... given that most aboriginal societies “did not keep written records”, the failure to do so would “impose an impossible burden of proof” on aboriginal peoples, and “render nugatory” any rights that they have... » )

[2] , ibid. au para 87

[3] Canada c. Benoit, 2003 CAF 236 (CanLII) le juge Nadon

[4] , ibid. at para 25

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Ligne 1 : / Ligne 1 : @@
-{{en|Oral_Aboriginal_History_Evidence}}
+[[en:Oral_Aboriginal_History_Evidence]]
-{{fr|Preuve_orale_sur_l%27histoire_autochtone}}
+{{Currency2|Janvier|2015}}
-{{Currency2|January|2015}}
+==Principes généraux==
-==General Principles==
+Les lois sur la preuve doivent tenir compte des témoignages oraux des peuples autochtones afin de leur donner un {{Tr}}« pied d’égalité » avec d’autres types de preuves historiques, comme la documentation historique.<ref>
-The laws of evidence must accommodate oral history evidence of aboriginal peoples in order to give it "equal footing" with other types of historical evidence such as historical documentation.<ref>
+{{CanLIIRPC|Delgamuukw v. British Columbia|1fqz8|1997 CanLII 302 (CSC)|[1997] 3 RCS 1010}} at para 87 ( {{Tr}}« Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents. This is a long-standing practice in the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples ... given that most aboriginal societies “did not keep written records”, the failure to do so would “impose an impossible burden of proof” on aboriginal peoples, and “render nugatory” any rights that they have... » )
-{{CanLIIRPC|Delgamuukw v. British Columbia|1fqz8|1997 CanLII 302 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 1010}} at para 87 ("Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents. This is a long-standing practice in the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples ... given that most aboriginal societies “did not keep written records”, the failure to do so would “impose an impossible burden of proof” on aboriginal peoples, and “render nugatory” any rights that they have...")
 </ref>
-Assessment of whether to accept the evidence is on a "case-by-case" basis.<ref>
+L'évaluation de l'acceptation de la preuve se fait au cas par cas.<ref>
-{{ibid1|Delgamuukw}} at para 87
+{{ibid1|Delgamuukw}} au para 87
 </ref>
-Assessment of reliability should not be on a community-based standard but must be objective.<Ref>
+L'évaluation de la fiabilité ne doit pas se faire selon une norme communautaire, mais doit être objective.<Ref>
-{{CanLIIRC|Canada v. Benoit|4h0l|2003 FCA 236 (CanLII)}} per Nadon JA
+{{CanLIIRC|Canada c. Benoit|4h0l|2003 CAF 236 (CanLII)}} le juge Nadon
 </ref>
-Evidence that "creates only suspicion, surmise or conjecture is, of course, insufficient."<ref>
+Une preuve qui {{Tr}}« ne suscite que des soupçons, des suppositions ou des conjectures est, bien entendu, insuffisante. »<ref>
 {{ibid1|Benoit}} at para 25
 </ref>
 {{Reflist|2}}