Canada (Solicitor General) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Superintendent Donald Heaton and Chief Superintendent Michael Spooner v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario and Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Attorney General of Ontario et al., (1981) 38 N.R. 588 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 20, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1981), 38 N.R. 588 (SCC);1981 CanLII 33 (SCC);38 NR 588;23 CPC 99;128 DLR (3d) 193;[1981] 2 SCR 494;1981 CanLII 196 (SCC);62 CCC (2d) 193;[1981] 2 SCR 130;23 CR (3d) 338

Can. v. Royal Comm. of Inquiry (1981), 38 N.R. 588 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Solicitor General of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Superintendent Donald Heaton and Chief Superintendent Michael Spooner v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Attorney General for Ontario et al.

Indexed As: Canada (Solicitor General) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Superintendent Donald Heaton and Chief Superintendent Michael Spooner v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario and Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Attorney General of Ontario et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

October 20, 1981.

Summary:

In testifying before the Ontario Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers refused to divulge the names of Ontario physicians and hospital employees, who gave information to the R.C.M.P. respecting patients and drug use without the patients' consent contrary to their statutory duty. The Royal Commission stated a case to the Ontario Divisional Court respecting whether the police officers could be compelled to divulge the names of their informants. The Ontario Divisional Court held that the identity of physicians and hospital employees employed by hospital boards must be divulged, but the identity of physicians in private practice need not be.

On appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the police-informer privilege did not apply, if the informant communicated information which he should not have given.

On appeal the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the police officers could not be compelled to divulge the names of their informants to the Commission. See paragraphs 1 to 36.

Laskin, C.J.C., dissenting, Dickson, J., concurring, was of the opinion that the police-informer privilege applied only to criminal prosecutions or criminal-related proceedings. See paragraphs 37 to 84.

Evidence - Topic 4150

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Identity of police informants - Ontario physicians and hospital employees gave information to the R.C.M.P. respecting patients and drug use without patients' consent contrary to their statutory duty - The R.C.M.P. claimed the privilege of refusing to divulge the identity of the informants to an Ontario Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Records - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the R.C.M.P. were not required to divulge the names of the informants to the Commission.

Cases Noticed:

Marks v. Beyfus (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 494, appld. [paras. 4, 65].

D. v. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, [1978] A.C. 171, appld. [paras. 5, 62].

R. v. Hardy, 24 St. Tr. 199, appld. [para. 6].

R. v. O'Connor (1846), 4 St. Tr. (N.S.) 935, refd to. [para. 7].

Attorney General v. Briant (1846), 15 M. & W. 169; 15 L.J. Ex. 265, consd. [para. 7].

Humphrey v. Archibald (1893), 20 O.A.R. 267, appld. [paras. 9, 65].

Rogers v. Secretary of State for the Home Secretary, [1973] A.C. 388, appld. [paras. 21, 67].

Reference re Legislative Privilege (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 226; 18 O.R.(2d) 529, appld. [paras. 25, 46].

Slavutych v. Baker, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 46].

DiIorio and Fontaine v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 452; 8 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 59].

Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Richardson (1863), 3 F. & F. 693; 176 E.R. 318, consd. [para. 66].

R. v. Barton, [1979] 2 All E.R. 1192, consd. [para. 66].

Alfred Crompton Amusement Machine Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2), [1977] A.C. 405, consd. [para. 69].

Science Research Council v. Nassé, [1979] 3 All E.R. 673, consd. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Health Disciplines Act, S.O. 1974, c. 47 [para. 43].

Health Disciplines Act Regulations, Reg. 577/75, sect. 26 [para. 43].

Public Hospital's Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 378 [para. 43].

Public Hospital's Act Regulation, Reg. 729, sect. 48(1) [para. 43].

Public Inquiries Act, S.O. 1971, c. 49, sect. 4 [para. 41]; sect. 7(1) [paras. 3, 41]; sect. 9, sect. 10 [para. 41]; sect. 11 [paras. 3, 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wigmore on Evidence (1961 McNaughton Rev.), vol. 8, p. 527, para. 2285 [para. 62].

Counsel:

J.A. Scollin, Q.C., and Eric A. Bowie, for the appellant the Solicitor General of Canada;

R.J. Carter, Q.C., for the intervenors Superintendent D. Heaton and Chief Superintendent Michael Spooner;

H.T. Strosberg, for the respondent the Royal Commission of Inquiry;

Marc Rosenberg and Chris Buhr, for the respondent Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

D.W. Mundell, Q.C., and R.M. McLeod, Q.C., for the intervenor the Attorney General of Ontario;

Henri Brun, for the intervenor the Attorney General of Quebec;

P.L. Cumming and H. Hazen Strange, Q.C., for the intervenor the Attorney General of New Brunswick;

L.F. Lindoolm and B.A. Barrington-Foote, for the intervenor the Attorney General of British Columbia;

William Henkel, Q.C., for the intervenor the Attorney General of Alberta.

This case was heard on October 14 and 15, 1980, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 20, 1981, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

LASKIN, C.J.C., dissenting - see paragraphs 37 to 84.

RITCHIE, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., concurred with MARTLAND, J.

DICKSON, J., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.