Recours en cas d'appel d'acquittement

Ang

Fr

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2020. (Rev. # 3527)

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.

• < Procédure et pratique
• < Appels

Principes généraux

Under s. 686 and 834(1)(a) the Court of appeal order one of several remedies to an unlawful acquittal.

686
[omis (1), (2) and (3)]

Appeal from acquittal

(4) If an appeal is from an acquittal or verdict that the appellant or respondent was unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court of appeal may

(a) dismiss the appeal; or

(b) allow the appeal, set aside the verdict and

(i) order a new trial, or

(ii) except where the verdict is that of a court composed of a judge and jury, enter a verdict of guilty with respect to the offence of which, in its opinion, the accused should have been found guilty but for the error in law, and pass a sentence that is warranted in law, or remit the matter to the trial court and direct the trial court to impose a sentence that is warranted in law.

[omis (5), (5.01), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 686; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 145, 203; 1991, c. 43, s. 9; 1997, c. 18, s. 98; 1999, c. 3, s. 52, c. 5, s. 26; 2015, c. 3, s. 54(F); 2019, c. 25, s. 282(E).

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Before s. 686(4)(b)(i) can be applied there must be an error of law. Once an error of law is established, the appellate must also establish that there is a "nexus between the legal error and the verdict entered."

Appeal by Accused

There is no statutory right of appeal by an accused who is acquitted. This is the case even in the face of severe findings against the accused in the course of the reasons.

Some exceptions permit an appeal of reasons to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act.

Entering a Conviction

Section 686(4)(b)(ii) states:

686
[omis (1), (2) and (3)]

Appeal from acquittal

(4) If an appeal is from an acquittal or verdict that the appellant or respondent was unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court of appeal may

[omis (a)]

(b) allow the appeal, set aside the verdict and

[omis (i)]
, or

(ii) except where the verdict is that of a court composed of a judge and jury, enter a verdict of guilty with respect to the offence of which, in its opinion, the accused should have been found guilty but for the error in law, and pass a sentence that is warranted in law, or remit the matter to the trial court and direct the trial court to impose a sentence that is warranted in law.

[omis (5), (5.01), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 686; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 145, 203; 1991, c. 43, s. 9; 1997, c. 18, s. 98; 1999, c. 3, s. 52, c. 5, s. 26; 2015, c. 3, s. 54(F); 2019, c. 25, s. 282(E).

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

This section authorizes a Court of Appeal to substitute a verdict of guilt "with respect to the offence of which, in its opinion, the accused should have been found guilty but for the error in law."

A conviction can be entered under s. 686(4)(b)(ii) if the appellate court is satisfied that the trial judge made all the "[a]ll the findings necessary to support a verdict of guilty must have been made, either explicitly or implicitly, or not be in issue."

A appellate-level court will only set aside an acquittal and enter a conviction when "the trial judge’s findings of fact, viewed in light of the applicable law, supported a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt." This should only be "in the clearest of cases."

Ordering a New Trial

For the Crown to succeed in seeking a new trial, it "must show that the trial judge erred and that this error 'might reasonably be thought ... to have had a material bearing on the acquittal'."

Burden

The onus on the crown is a "heavy one."

Proof of Alternative Outcome

It is not necessary to show "that the verdict would necessarily have been different."

A new trial will be ordered under s. 686(4)(b)(i) where the "verdict would not necessarily have been the same if the trial judge had properly directed the jury" or, in the case of a judge-alone trial, that had "the trial Judge properly instructed himself, his judgment of acquittal would not necessarily have been the same." In judge-alone this is measured on an objective, not subjective, standard.

Prosecution To be Done Differently

A new trial is not permitted where the Crown relies on the fact that the prosecution should have been done differently.

Consequences of Ordering New Trial

A successful appeal from a stay of proceedings due to delay can be "remitted for continuation before the original trial judge" under s. 686(8).

Election

686
[omis (1), (2), (3) and (4)]

New trial under Part XIX

(5) Subject to subsection (5.01) [procès en vertu de la partie XIX – Nunavut], if an appeal is taken in respect of proceedings under Part XIX [Pt. XIX – Actes criminels – procès sans jury (art. 552 à 572)] and the court of appeal orders a new trial under this Part [Pt. XXI – Appels – actes criminels (art. 673 à 696)], the following provisions apply:

(a) if the accused, in his notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal, requested that the new trial, if ordered, should be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the new trial shall be held accordingly;

(b) if the accused, in his notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal, did not request that the new trial, if ordered, should be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the new trial shall, without further election by the accused, be held before a judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, acting under Part XIX [Pt. XIX – Actes criminels – procès sans jury (art. 552 à 572)], other than a judge or provincial court judge who tried the accused in the first instance, unless the court of appeal directs that the new trial be held before the judge or provincial court judge who tried the accused in the first instance;

(c) if the court of appeal orders that the new trial shall be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the new trial shall be commenced by an indictment in writing setting forth the offence in respect of which the new trial was ordered; and

(d) notwithstanding paragraph (a), if the conviction against which the accused appealed was for an offence mentioned in section 553 [absolute competence offenses] and was made by a provincial court judge, the new trial shall be held before a provincial court judge acting under Part XIX [Pt. XIX – Actes criminels – procès sans jury (art. 552 à 572)], other than the provincial court judge who tried the accused in the first instance, unless the court of appeal directs that the new trial be held before the provincial court judge who tried the accused in the first instance.

New trial under Part XIX — Nunavut

(5.01) If an appeal is taken in respect of proceedings under Part XIX [Pt. XIX – Actes criminels – procès sans jury (art. 552 à 572)] and the Court of Appeal of Nunavut orders a new trial under Part XXI [Pt. XXI – Appels – actes criminels (art. 673 à 696)], the following provisions apply:

(a) if the accused, in the notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal, requested that the new trial, if ordered, should be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the new trial shall be held accordingly;

(b) if the accused, in the notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal, did not request that the new trial, if ordered, should be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the new trial shall, without further election by the accused, and without a further preliminary inquiry, be held before a judge, acting under Part XIX [Pt. XIX – Actes criminels – procès sans jury (art. 552 à 572)], other than a judge who tried the accused in the first instance, unless the Court of Appeal of Nunavut directs that the new trial be held before the judge who tried the accused in the first instance;

(c) if the Court of Appeal of Nunavut orders that the new trial shall be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the new trial shall be commenced by an indictment in writing setting forth the offence in respect of which the new trial was ordered; and

(d) despite paragraph (a), if the conviction against which the accused appealed was for an indictable offence mentioned in section 553 [absolute competence offenses], the new trial shall be held before a judge acting under Part XIX [Pt. XIX – Actes criminels – procès sans jury (art. 552 à 572)], other than the judge who tried the accused in the first instance, unless the Court of Appeal of Nunavut directs that the new trial be held before the judge who tried the accused in the first instance.

Election if new trial a jury trial

(5.1) Subject to subsection (5.2) [choix si le nouveau procès est un procès avec jury — Nunavut], if a new trial ordered by the court of appeal is to be held before a court composed of a judge and jury,

(a) the accused may, with the consent of the prosecutor, elect to have the trial heard before a judge without a jury or a provincial court judge;

(b) the election shall be deemed to be a re-election within the meaning of subsection 561(5) [droit de réélire par un supérieur avec préavis et transmission du dossier]; and

(c) subsection 561(5) [droit de réélire par un supérieur avec préavis et transmission du dossier] applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the election.

Election if new trial a jury trial — Nunavut

(5.2) If a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal of Nunavut is to be held before a court composed of a judge and jury, the accused may, with the consent of the prosecutor, elect to have the trial heard before a judge without a jury. The election shall be deemed to be a re-election within the meaning of subsection 561.1(1) [droit de réélection avec consentement – Nunavut], and subsection 561.1(6) [avis lorsqu'aucune enquête préliminaire ou enquête préliminaire n'est terminée — Nunavut] applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the election.
[omis (6), (7) and (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 686; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 145, 203; 1991, c. 43, s. 9; 1997, c. 18, s. 98; 1999, c. 3, s. 52, c. 5, s. 26; 2015, c. 3, s. 54(F).
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

When a new trial is ordered under s. 686(5), the accused does not have a right to re-elect the mode of trial.

However, an ordered re-trial from a judge and jury verdict may re-elect to a trial by judge alone with the consent of the Crown.

Limiting New Trial Issues

Under s. 686(8) when the Court of Appeal orders a new trial they may also order that the trial issues be narowed.

On a successful appeal on the basis of the issue of entrapment, the court of appeal may quash the conviction but affirm the verdict of guilt and return it to trial on the sole issue of post-verdict entrapment.

The Court of appeal may send a matter back for retrial on the sole issue "of whether [the accused's] automatism should lead to an acquittal or an NCR-MD verdict."

Ancillary Order Powers

See Remedies_on_Conviction_Appeal#Ancillary_Order_Powers (s. 686(8))