QUICK TAKEAWAY
Perjury is taken seriously in Canadian courts as it can cause a distortion of justice and potentially lead to the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person. If you knowingly provide false information or make a false statement while under oath in a judicial setting with the intention of deceiving the judge or jury, you can be charged with perjury. Additionally, you may also face consequences if you make a false statement under oath outside of a judicial proceeding. According to s.131.1 ss.3 of the Criminal Code of Canada, committing perjury can result in an indictable offence and a potential prison sentence of up to 14 years. To be convicted, it must be proven that you intended to deceive the judicial system.
Table of Contents:
What is Perjury in Canada?
Perjury is covered in Part IV of Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice. Under the section of the Criminal Code dealing with misleading justice, it is a crime to lie to the court or the police under oath or solemn affirmation. Filing a false police report can also lead to a conviction. Simply, the law is there to prevent people from making false statements, falsely accusing others or intentionally misleading a court.
A false statement does not have to be elaborate to lead to a conviction. In one case [R. v. Pammett, 2017] a man was convicted of perjury after denying he knew the nickname of a man accused of assault. The nickname was significant because the Crown attempted to connect the accused with a motorcycle gang to support its case. The man was convicted of lying to the court and jailed for one year.
It should be noted that you must be aware you are making a false claim and that you had the intention to mislead. You cannot be convicted if you reasonably believed your statement to be true when you gave it. As well, a statement that is true, even if it is misleading or nonresponsive, is not considered perjury.
What is Needed to Convict
To secure a conviction, the Crown prosecutor must convince the court beyond a reasonable doubtThe standard that must be exceeded to find someone guilty that you knowingly made false statements under oath that were intended to deceive. However, a single witness testimony alone is generally not enough to secure a conviction unless substantial supporting documentation exists. Despite this, convictions based on the testimony of a single individual do occur, particularly in cases such as sexual assault, where it is often a matter of conflicting accounts (he said, she said).
Treated as an Indictable Offence
If you have been charged with perjury, the Crown will proceed as an indictable offenceIndictable offences are more-serious criminal offences and you will likely be imprisoned if convicted.
Penalties for Perjury
Under the Criminal Code, anyone “who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” Because perjury is considered a miscarriage of justice, courts will focus on denunciation and deterrence in sentencing. Among the aggravating factors a judge may consider is the effect of the statement or testimony on the outcome of the trial, whether the evidence led to the implication of an innocent person, whether the perjury was planned and deliberate, and the seriousness of the offence in relation to perjury.
R. v. Reyat - Case Example
Inderjit Singh Reyat appealed a court decision where he had been convicted of perjury during a trial. He claimed that the jury instructions were faulty and unjust, and that the judge failed to inform the jury about the need for proof. However, his appeal was not successful.
VaughanLawyersNear Me
Karma Legal Professional Corporation
D'Aversa Law
Tadres Law Professional Corporation
Bhardwaj Law Professional Corporation
Elliot Starer
Absolute Law Professional Corporation
Glossary of Legal Terms
Indictable offence
Indictable offences are the most serious offences under the Criminal Code and they come with more serious punishments, up to a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Reasonable doubt
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that reasonable doubt “falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities” and “that something less than absolute certainty is required, and that something more than probable guilt is required."
