section 347(6)


An accused can cross-examine the actuary with court permission if a certificate is produced under subsection (4).


347(6) An accused or a defendant against whom a certificate referred to in subsection (4) is produced may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of the actuary for the purposes of cross-examination.


Section 347(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the right of an accused or a defendant to cross-examine an actuary who has provided a certificate relevant to their case. This section is particularly relevant in cases where the prosecution or defense has retained the services of an actuary to provide expert evidence relating to financial matters, such as the value of a business or the losses suffered as a result of fraud. When an actuary provides a certificate in support of their expert opinion, this certificate may be used as evidence in court. However, the accused or defendant has the right to challenge this evidence by cross-examining the actuary. In order to do so, they must first obtain leave of the court, which means that they must ask for permission to require the actuary's attendance for cross-examination. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility and reliability of the evidence given by the actuary. For example, the cross-examiner may ask questions to clarify the actuary's calculations or to establish any potential biases or conflicts of interest that may have influenced their expert opinion. The actuary must answer these questions truthfully and to the best of their ability. Overall, section 347(6) represents an important protection for the rights of the accused or defendant in cases where financial evidence is being presented. By allowing for cross-examination of the actuary, this section ensures that the evidence presented is reliable and accurate, and that the accused or defendant has the opportunity to challenge it fully.


Section 347(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an accused or defendant the ability to cross-examine an actuary who has provided evidence in court. This section applies specifically to cases related to offences under section 347 of the Criminal Code, which include fraudulent manipulation of stock exchanges, securities, commodities, and other financial instruments. The purpose of this provision is to protect the rights of an individual facing charges related to financial offences. Cross-examining an actuary who has provided an expert opinion can provide additional insight into the evidence being presented against an accused or defendant. It also ensures that the evidence presented is accurate and reliable. The ability to cross-examine an actuary with leave of the court ensures that the process remains fair and just. It allows an accused to challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution and to provide their own evidence in response. This requirement also ensures that the actuary can be held accountable for their evidence and can be questioned if their evidence is found to be incomplete or incorrect. The provision also highlights the importance of an actuary's work in the realm of financial offences. An actuary is someone who calculates and analyzes financial risk using complex mathematical formulas and statistical data. They are a crucial source of information for complex financial cases, and their evidence can play a central role in the outcome of a case. However, this provision also presents some challenges. For example, obtaining leave to cross-examine an actuary may require legal expertise, which may be beyond the capacities of some accused or defendants. There may also be instances where an actuary is unable to attend a cross-examination, which can further complicate the legal proceedings. In conclusion, Section 347(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada protects an accused or defendant's right to cross-examine an actuary who provides evidence in court, ensuring that the evidence presented is fair, accurate, and reliable. While this provision presents some challenges, it remains a crucial part of Canada's justice system, and it highlights the importance of expert witnesses in complex financial cases.


Section 347(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows an accused or defendant to cross-examine an actuary, at the discretion of the court, when a certificate referred to in subsection (4) is produced. This provision is significant in cases involving allegations of fraud or financial crimes, where actuaries may be called upon to provide expert opinion and testimony. One key strategic consideration when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is the timing of the request for cross-examination. The request must be made with leave of the court, which means that the accused or defendant must convince the judge that there is a legitimate basis for questioning the actuary's findings. It is therefore advisable to carefully review the actuary's certificate, along with any other evidence, before deciding whether or not to request cross-examination. Another strategic consideration is the selection of counsel to conduct the cross-examination. The actuary is likely to be a highly qualified and experienced expert witness, and as such, it is important to choose a lawyer with the requisite expertise and experience to effectively challenge the actuary's opinions and conclusions. This may involve retaining a forensic accountant or other financial expert to consult on the case and assist with the cross-examination. In terms of specific strategies that could be employed during cross-examination, several approaches may be effective. For example, the defendant may seek to undermine the actuary's credibility by focusing on any potential biases or conflicts of interest that may have influenced their findings. Another strategy is to challenge the actuary's methodology or assumptions, and to highlight any inconsistencies or discrepancies in their analysis. The defendant may also seek to introduce alternative evidence or expert testimony to challenge the actuary's conclusions. Ultimately, the decision to request cross-examination of an actuary will depend on the specific circumstances of each case. However, with careful preparation and the right legal expertise, defendants may be able to use this provision to effectively challenge the evidence against them and present a more robust defense.