Le principe de contradiction, « règle cardinale » de l’instance civile, garantit le droit aux parties à un litige d’être entendues et de pouvoir débattre librement de leur position. La contradiction incarne un idéal de justice auquel on attribue plusieurs avantages, à savoir de contribuer à découvrir la vérité, d’assurer l’autonomie des parties et d’encourager la confiance des justiciables dans les tribunaux. À ces bénéfices s’associent toutefois certains effets néfastes. L’instance civile contradictoire est alourdie par la complexification des débats, des procédures et des preuves, ainsi que par un antagonisme marqué entre les parties. Face à ces enjeux, les deux dernières décennies ont vu la mise en place d’une série de réformes procédurales visant l’amélioration de l’accès à la justice. D’une procédure imprégnée par des valeurs associées au contradictoire, le Code de procédure civile propose un virage vers une culture managériale et coopérative du litige. L’effet de ces réformes a toutefois été mitigé, et on constate chez les praticiens une résistance au changement. L’objectif de la thèse est de démontrer que la symbolique associée au principe de contradiction constitue un obstacle au changement dans l’instance civile québécoise. La thèse illustre comment le principe de contradiction, puisqu’il représente symboliquement un idéal de justice pour les praticiens, suscite chez eux un attachement qui les rend peu disposés au changement. La thèse identifie comment cette résistance se matérialise en repérant les stratégies juridiques utilisées pour s’opposer à certaines mesures. Il est notamment démontré que les visées de proportionnalité du Code de procédure civile sont difficiles à concilier avec le principe de contradiction. Les constats réalisés dans la thèse mènent à certaines critiques et recommandations pour améliorer les outils juridiques qui sont à la disposition des juges. Il sera notamment recommandé de réformer certaines règles en matière de preuve pour assurer leur cohérence avec le Code de procédure civile. / The adversarial principle, a "cardinal rule" of civil procedure, ensures the right of parties in a dispute to be heard and to freely debate their positions. This adversarial culture embodies an ideal of justice attributed with several advantages, such as contributing to the discovery of truth, ensuring the autonomy of parties, and fostering trust in the justice system. However, along with these benefits, come certain adverse effects. Adversarial civil proceedings are burdened by the complexity of procedures and evidence, as well as by antagonism between the parties. In response to these challenges, the past two decades have witnessed the implementation of a series of procedural reforms aimed at improving access to justice. Moving away from a procedure steeped in adversarial culture, the Code of Civil Procedure aims for a shift towards a managerial and cooperative judicial culture. Nevertheless, the impact of these reforms has been disappointing, with practitioners showing resistance to change. The thesis aims to demonstrate that the symbolism associated with to the adversarial principle serves as a barrier to change within the Quebec justice system. It elucidates how the principle, embodying an ideal of justice for practitioners, fosters an attachment that raises resistance to change. The thesis identifies the manifestation of this resistance and analyzes the legal strategies employed to obstruct certain measures. The insights gathered prompt specific criticisms and recommendations aimed at enhancing the legal toolkit at the disposal of judges. Among these recommendations, it will be proposed to reform certain rules of evidence law to align them with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Henrique Araujo Costa.pdf: 2539931 bytes, checksum: 9c873ec9e2f361932a9e422dd0b34bea (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-05-03 / This text proposes a comparative study of English and Brazilian civil procedure. The research approaches the judge powers, specifically the case management powers. Considering the issue s delimitation, new statutes and its practice are compared through the perspective of both countries. In conclusion, these judge powers have become similar due to the blending practices seen among different law families, as well as between different countries of the same family. However despite the convergence towards strengthening these powers the problems to be solved by these countries have distinct roots. In England the cost problem is the biggest one, while in Brazil the biggest problem is the delay. Moreover, despite their early convergence, the cultural roots of each system keep them somehow apart from one another. Thus it is not possible to state which would the best system (since they are unique) and the adoption of the English model by the Brazilian legislation should be done with caution (since the problems to be solved are different) / O presente trabalho é uma proposta de estudo comparado do direito processual civil inglês e do brasileiro. A tese é centrada no tema dos poderes do juiz, notadamente nos case management powers. Dentro do recorte proposto, são comparadas as normas e a prática judicial recentemente instituídas pelo direito de cada um dos mencionados países. Conclui-se que os poderes desses juízes tornaram-se bastante semelhantes em decorrência da assimilação mútua de práticas judiciais entre diferentes famílias do direito, bem como entre países distintos de mesma família. No entanto a despeito da convergência em torno do fortalecimento dos poderes do juiz os problemas a serem solucionados pelos referidos países têm raízes distintas. A Inglaterra tem como maior problema o custo, enquanto o Brasil tem como maior problema a demora. Ademais, a raiz cultural de cada sistema os mantém de alguma forma diferentes, apesar da aproximação recente. Por isso não é possível dizer qual dos sistemas seja melhor (já que são incomparáveis) e eventual importação do modelo inglês pela legislação brasileira precisaria ser feita com ressalvas (já que os problemas a serem solucionados são distintos)