INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
657.3(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the court may require the person who appears to have signed an affidavit or solemn declaration referred to in that subsection to appear before it for examination or cross-examination in respect of the issue of proof of any of the statements contained in the affidavit or solemn declaration or report.
Section 657.3(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows the court to call upon the person who has signed an affidavit or solemn declaration for examination or cross-examination regarding the statements made in the document. This provision is important as it ensures that the information provided in the document is not only reliable but also stands up to scrutiny in a court of law. Generally, affidavits and solemn declarations are used in legal proceedings as evidence to support arguments or claims made by the parties involved. These documents serve as a written record of the facts and information that an individual has knowledge of, and they are typically used to help establish the basis for a case. However, sometimes these documents contain information that may be challenged or disputed by the other party, or the court may have reason to believe that the information provided is not entirely accurate. In these situations, the court may use section 657.3(2) to require the affiant to appear before it for examination or cross-examination. During examination or cross-examination, the court will ask the affiant questions about the statements made in the document. The purpose of this is to obtain a clearer understanding of the facts and to ensure that the court has a complete and accurate picture of the events at issue. Overall, section 657.3(2) is an important provision that helps to ensure that information presented in affidavits and solemn declarations is reliable and can be relied upon in legal proceedings. It also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the administration of justice, which is crucial to maintaining public trust and confidence in the legal system.
Section 657.3(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an empowering code provision that grants trial courts the power to summon and examine the person who appears to have executed an affidavit, solemn declaration or report during a criminal trial. The provision authorizes the court to require such a person to appear before it for examination or cross-examination on any statement or alleged fact contained in the affidavit or declaration to establish the veracity of that statement. The section provides the trial courts with a mechanism to ensure that evidence adduced in a criminal trial is tested through examination and cross-examination, which is a fundamental aspect of the fairness and objectivity of the criminal justice system. The purpose of Section 657.3(2) is to ensure that the evidence presented in court is reliable, accurate and truthful. The section recognizes that affidavits and declarations may be used as evidence during a trial, and as such, the court must have the authority to summon and examine the person who executed the affidavit, solemn declaration or report. The court's examination or cross-examination of the signatory of the affidavit is intended to scrutinize and verify the facts and statements in the affidavit to prevent the prosecution or defense from relying on unproven statements. The section grants discretion to the trial court on whether to require the signatory to appear for examination or cross-examination. It is up to the court to determine whether the evidence contained in the affidavit is contentious and requires clarification through examination or cross-examination. The discretion granted to the court reflects the need to balance the interest of justice with protecting the signatory from undue inconvenience or harassment, ensuring that the examination is necessary or relevant to establish the truthfulness of the affidavit. In case the court orders the signatory to appear before it, the signatory may be required to provide further clarification or explanation on contentious points, or the facts in the statement may be independently verified. This approach enables the court to get a better understanding of the weight of the evidence and make an informed decision based on reliable and tested information. The provision underlines the importance of the principle of fairness in criminal trials. It ensures that evidence is scrutinized and tested through examination and cross-examination, thus promoting the integrity and reliability of the criminal justice system. It also allows witnesses to be held accountable for the statements they make and the evidence they provide, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in the administration of justice. In conclusion, Section 657.3(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that promotes fairness, objectivity, and the rule of law in criminal trials. It grants trial courts the power to summon and examine the signatory of an affidavit, solemn declaration or report to ensure that the evidence presented in a criminal trial is reliable and truthful. The provision reflects the Canadian criminal justice system's commitment to the principle of fairness and the importance of testing the evidence presented in court.
Section 657.3(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for a person who appears to have signed an affidavit or solemn declaration to be required to appear before the court for examination or cross-examination on any issue related to proof of the statements contained in the affidavit or solemn declaration. This provision presents strategic considerations that must be taken into account when dealing with a case in which this section may be invoked. One of the main strategic considerations is determining when it may be beneficial to use this section. If there is doubt about the credibility of the person who signed the affidavit or solemn declaration, or if there is reason to believe that the statements may not be fully accurate, it may be useful to require the person to appear for examination or cross-examination. Another consideration is the manner in which the examination or cross-examination is conducted. The goal should be to elicit the best possible evidence and expose any weaknesses in the statements made in the affidavit or solemn declaration. This may require extensive preparation and careful questioning. It is also important to ensure that the person is properly informed of their right to counsel, as failure to do so may result in the statement being excluded from evidence. In some cases, it may be necessary to seek the assistance of an expert to challenge the statement made in the affidavit or solemn declaration. This could involve obtaining testimony from a forensic accountant, handwriting expert, or other specialist. The expert may be able to identify inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the statement, which can be used to challenge its validity. Another key strategic consideration is the timing of the request to require the person to appear for examination or cross-examination. This must be balanced against the need to obtain the best possible evidence, as well as other procedural requirements. For example, it may be necessary to comply with timelines for the filing of documents, or to ensure that the witness has sufficient notice of the request to appear. Finally, it is important to keep in mind the potential impact of invoking section 657.3(2) on the overall case strategy. If there is a risk that the person's testimony could undermine the case, it may be better to rely on other evidence or to avoid the use of the affidavit or solemn declaration altogether. In terms of strategic considerations and strategies that can be employed, careful consideration must be given to the circumstances of the case and the evidence available. Invoking section 657.3(2) can be a powerful tool in challenging the validity of an affidavit or solemn declaration, but it must be used judiciously and with a clear sense of the potential benefits and risks. With careful preparation and execution, however, it can be an effective way of securing the best possible outcome in a criminal case.