Un acquittement criminel n'exclut pas la possibilité d'une condamnation civile pour les mêmes faits allégués

par Karim Renno
Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.

On ne le répétera jamais assez, le fardeau de preuve en droit criminel et en doit civil est très différent, de sorte qu'un acquittement criminel ne garanti pas un résultat positif au civil. La Cour d'appel réitère ce principe dans Comito c. Mountakis-Markos (2012 QCCA 1149).

Dans cette affaire, l'Appelante a vu, en première instance, ses procédures en dommages pour poursuite criminelle abusive rejetées, nonobstant le fait qu'il a été acquitté au criminel. Essentiellement, le juge de première instance en est venu à la conclusion que l'Appelant avait physiquement agressé sa belle-fille.

La Cour d'appel ne voit pas de raison d'intervenir dans cette conclusion factuelle. En effet, elle souligne que le fardeau criminel et civil est différent et qu'il n'y a rien de contradictoire dans l'acquittement criminel et la responsabilité civile:

[7] As to the facts, the trial judge came to the conclusion that Cosimo Comito had physically assaulted his daughter in law, despite the fact that he was acquitted of the charges laid against him. The trial judge noted that the judge in the criminal case had stated bluntly that he did not believe Cosimo Comito. It is trite to say that the burden of proof in criminal matters is far greater than the mere balance of probabilities which applies to civil matters. Thus it was open to the trial judge to find that despite the acquittal, Cosimo Comito's claim in damages against Respondents for malicious prosecution was ill founded.  

[8] In instituting his claim for malicious prosecution, Cosimo Comito exposed himself to the risk that the substance of the Respondent's criminal complaint be established in the subsequent civil trial on a balance of probabilities. 

[9] In addition, the trial judge concluded that Cosimo Comito had sued Respondents in bad faith and with the sole view of causing them prejudice, a finding for which there was sufficient proof in the record. 

[10] On the whole, Appellant fails to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error on the part of the first judge in reaching her findings of fact, which found ample support in the evidence.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/MUdXIT

Référence neutre: [2012] ABD 222