Section 136 — Criminal Code: Witness giving contradictory evidence
Text of the provision Official document
Every one who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence with respect to any matter of fact or knowledge and who subsequently, in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence that is contrary to his previous evidence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, whether or not the prior or later evidence or either is true, but no person shall be convicted under this section unless the court, judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, in giving evidence in either of the judicial proceedings, intended to mislead. Evidence given under section 714.1, 714.2 or 714.3 or under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act or evidence or a statement given under an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is deemed to be evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of subsection (1). Notwithstanding the definition evidence in section 118, evidence , for the purposes of this section, does not include evidence that is not material. Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, a certificate specifying with reasonable particularity the proceeding in which that person is alleged to have given the evidence in respect of which the offence is charged, is evidence that it was given in a judicial proceeding, without proof of the signature or official character of the person by whom the certificate purports to be signed if it purports to be signed by the clerk of the court or other official having the custody of the record of that proceeding or by his lawful deputy. No proceedings shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.
Official source: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →