L.L.A. v. Beharriell, (1995) 88 O.A.C. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux- Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 88 O.A.C. 241 (SCC)

L.L.A. v. Beharriell (1995), 88 O.A.C. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

L.L.A., The Sexual Assault Care Centre of the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital and Women in Crisis (Algoma) Inc. (appellants) v. A.B. (respondent) and Her Majesty The Queen, The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Canadian Foundation For Children, Youth and the Law, The Aboriginal Women's Council, The Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Dawn, Ontario: Disabled Women's Network Ontario, The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF") and The Criminal Lawyers Association (intervenors)

(24568)

Indexed As: L.L.A. v. Beharriell

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux- Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Major, JJ.

December 14, 1995.

Summary:

Beharriell was charged with indecently assaulting L.L.A. as a child in 1980. Behar­riell subpoenaed two organizations that counselled L.L.A., seeking production of all records relating to her. The trial judge ruled that the organizations had to produce the records. L.L.A. and the organizations appealed. The Crown applied to quash the appeals as impermissible appeals from inter­locutory evidentiary rulings.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 77 O.A.C. 299, allowed the application and quashed the two appeals for want of jurisdiction. L.L.A. and the organi­zations applied under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act for leave to appeal the trial judge's order directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada, granted leave, allowed the appeal and quashed the trial judge's order for production, without prejudice to Beharriell's right to renew his request for production applying the pro­cedure and substantive law stated in the companion case of R. v. O'­Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1.

Administrative Law - Topic 5007

Judicial review - Certiorari - When avail­able - Criminal matters - [See first Crim­inal Law - Topic 4825 ].

Courts - Topic 3029

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - "Final judgment" - What constitutes - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 4825 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - Beharriell was charged with indecently assaulting L.L.A. as a child in 1980 - Beharriell subpoenaed two organizations that counselled L.L.A., seeking production of all records relating to her - The trial judge ruled that the organizations had to produce the records - The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the production order without prejudice to Beharriell's right to renew his request for production applying the procedure and substantive law as stated in R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1 - See para­graphs 1 to 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., discussed whether privilege attached to "private records held by third parties" - The criteria for privilege was Wigmore's four part test (para. 40) - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., held that there was no "class privilege" for communications between counsellors and sexual assault complain­ants - See paragraphs 31 to 74.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 4825 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4824

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - Of ruling against a third party - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 4825 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4825

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - From an interlocutory decision - A trial judge ordered third parties to pro­duce a sexual assault complainant's thera­peutic records - The Ontario Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the interlocutory order - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the interlocutory order affecting the third parties was a "final" order (Supreme Court Act, s. 2(1)) - The appropriate procedure was an application for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada (s. 40(1)) - The court stated that "third parties must follow a different procedural avenue depending on the level of court that issued the order being appealed. A provincial court order is to be challenged through an enlarged remedy of certiorari, which falls within the ambit of the superior courts. This decision can then be appealed through the regular channels of our justice system. ... where a court order is issued by a superior court judge in the first place ... third parties can challenge it by seeking leave to appeal directly to this Court ..." - The court stated that the audi alteram partem principle applied to give the Crown and complainant standing in such third party appeals - See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 4825

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - From an interlocutory decision - Beharriell was charged with indecently assaulting L.L.A. as a child in 1980 - Beharriell subpoenaed two organizations that counselled L.L.A., seeking production of all records relating to her - The trial judge ruled that the organizations had to produce the records - L.L.A. and the organizations appealed - The Crown applied to quash the appeals as impermis­sible appeals from interlocutory evidentiary rulings - The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the appeals - The Criminal Code did not permit interlocutory appeals on trial rulings respecting the admissibility of evidence or documents - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal rightly declined jurisdiction - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 5380

Evidence - Witnesses - Documents and reports - Medical records of witness - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 691 ].

Evidence - Topic 4349

Witnesses - Privilege - Particular rela­tionships - Sexual assault counsellors - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 691 ].

Practice - Topic 8862

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Grounds for - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4825 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Primeau (D.J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 60; 180 N.R. 101; 131 Sask.R. 198; 95 W.A.C. 198, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Jobin et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 78; 180 N.R. 303; 169 A.R. 23; 97 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268; 32 N.R. 520, refd to. [para. 27].

Cohen and Quebec (Attorney General), Re, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305; 27 N.R. 344, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 38].

Canada (Solicitor General) v. Royal Com­mission of Inquiry into Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 494; 38 N.R. 588; 128 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 40].

Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224, refd to. [para. 40].

Slavutych v. Baker - see Slavutych v. University of Alberta.

R. v. Ryan (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 357; 290 A.P.R. 357; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Smith (1985), 8 O.A.C. 241; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Kliman, [1994] B.C.W.L.D. No. 587 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Coon (1991), 74 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

M.(A.) v. Ryan, [1993] 7 W.W.R. 480 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

M.(E.) v. Martinson (1993), 81 B.C.L.R.(2d) 184 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 42].

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987), 480 U.S. 39, refd to. [para. 46].

United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U.S. 683, refd to. [para. 46].

Davis v. Alaska (1974), 418 U.S. 683, refd to. [para. 46].

Washington v. Texas (1967), 388 U.S. 13, refd to. [para. 46].

Robert H., Re (1986), 509 A.2d 475, refd to. [para. 47].

Commonwealth v. Two Juveniles (1986), 491 N.E.2d 234, refd to. [para. 47].

Commonwealth v. Samuels (1986), 511 A.2d 221, refd to. [para. 47].

Advisory Opinion to the House of Repre­sentatives, Re (1983), 469 A.2d 1161 (R.I.), refd to. [para. 47].

Commonwealth v. Wilson (1992), 602 A.2d 1290 (Penn. S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

People v. Foggy (1988), 521 N.E.2d 86 (Ill. S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

D. v. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, [1978] A.C. 171 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2), [1974] A.C. 405 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Rogers v. Home Secretary; Gaming Board for Great Britain v. Rogers, [1973] A.C. 388 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Campbell v. Tameside Metropolitan Bor­ough Council, [1982] 1 Q.B. 1065 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Gaskin v. Liverpool City Council, [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co., [1942] A.C. 624, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Osman, [1991] 1 W.L.R. 281 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Agar, [1990] 2 All E.R. 442 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

M (A. Minor) (Disclosure of Material), Re, [1990] 2 F.L.R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] A.C. 910, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122; 87 N.R. 163; 32 O.A.C. 259, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 64].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Park (D.G.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; 183 N.R. 81; 169 A.R. 241; 97 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 69].

Bisaillon v. Keable and Quebec (Attorney General), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 37 C.R.(3d) 289; 4 Admin. L.R. 205, refd to. [para. 69].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 211; [1991] 5 W.W.R. 389, refd to. [para. 69].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 68 C.C.C.(2d) 13 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 81].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 81].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 81].

Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 381 U.S. 479 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Barbosa (1994), 92 C.C.C.(3d) 131 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 97].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 2(1), sect. 40(1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Criminal Practice (1993), p. 1529 [para. 27].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report of Evidence (1975), generally [para. 43].

Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, Changing the Landscape: End­ing Violence - Achieving Equality (1993), pp. 28, 29 [para. 59].

Colton, Loretta N., R. v. Stinchcombe: Defining Disclosure (1995), 40 McGill L.J. 525, p. 556 [para. 37].

Cross on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1979), pp. 254, 284 [para. 48].

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1990), pp. 416, 456 [para. 48].

Developments in the Law -- Privileged Communications (1985), 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1450, pp. 1480, 1481 [para. 35].

Dubbelday, Catharina J.H., The Psychotherapist-Client Testimonial Pri­vilege: Defining the Professional Involved (1985), 34 Emory L.J. 777, p. 182 [para. 72].

Fennell, Caroline, The Law of Evidence in Ireland (1992), pp. 165, 193 [para. 48].

Field, David, The Law of Evidence in Scotland (1988), p. 248 [para. 48].

Hogan, Maureen B., The Constitutionality of an Absolute Privilege for Rape Crisis Counselling: A Criminal Defendant's Sixth Amendment Rights Versus a Rape Victim's Right to Confidential Thera­peutic Counselling (1989), 30 Boston College L. Rev. 411, pp. 470 to 474 [para. 46].

Joo, Anna Y., Broadening the Scope of Counsellor-Patient Privilege to Protect the Privacy of the Sexual Assault Sur­vivor (1995), 32 Har. J. on Legis. 255, p. 260 [para. 35].

Langdale, Rachel, and Maskrey, Simeon, Public Interest Immunity: Disclosure of Social Work Records (1994), 24 Fam. L. 513, generally [para. 51].

Laurence, Michael, Rape Victim-Crisis Counsellor Communications: An Argu­ment for an Absolute Privilege (1984), 17 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1213, pp. 1223, 1224 [para. 56].

Ligertwood, Andrew, Australian Evidence (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 207, 280 [para. 48].

Lord Chancellor (England), Statement (5th Series 1956), 197 H.L. Official Report col. 745, generally [para. 52].

MacCrimmon, Marilyn T., Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1991-92 Term Truth, Fairness and Equality (1993), 4 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 225, pp. 258, 259 [para. 63].

MacCrimmon, Marilyn T., and Boyle, Christine, Equality, Fairness and Rel­evance: Disclosure of Therapists' Records in Sexual Assault Trials, in Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, Filtering and Analyzing Evi­dence in an Age of Diversity (1993), pp. 103 to 105 [para. 62].

McCormick on Evidence (4th Ed. 1992), vol. 1, §§ 72, 77 [para. 35].

McLachlin, Beverley, Confidential Com­munications and the Law of Privilege (1977), 11 U.B.C.L. Rev. 266, generally [para. 66].

Mewett, Alan W., Witnesses (1991), p. 15-2 [para. 66].

Morse, Kerry L., A Uniform Testimonial Privilege for Mental Health Professionals (1990), 51 Ohio St. L.J. 741, p. 745 [para. 72].

Neuhauser, Maxine Hoffman, The Privi­lege of Confidentiality and Rape Crisis Counsellors (1985), 8 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 185, p. 188 [para. 34].

Robert, J., Criminal Justice Processing of Sexual Assault Cases (1994), 14:7 Juris­tat 3, generally [para. 59].

Saltzburg, Stephen A., Privileges and Professionals: Lawyers and Psychiatrists (1980), 66 Va. L. Rev. 597, pp. 621, 622 [para. 35].

Scarmeas, Carrie J., Rape Victim-Rape Crisis Counsellor Communications: A New Testimonial Privilege (1981-82), 86 Dick L. Rev. 539, pp. 543, 544 [para. 55].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 649 [para. 70].

Stone, Scott N., and Taylor, Robert K., Testimonial Privileges (2nd Ed. 1993), generally [para. 44].

Stuesser, Lee, Reconciling Disclosure and Privilege (1994), 30 C.R.(4th) 67, p. 75 [para. 93].

Tacon, S.A., A Question of Privilege: Valid Protection or Obstruction of Jus­tice? (1979), Osgoode Hall L.J. 332, generally [para. 66].

Tessier, Pierre, La vérité et la justice (1988), 19 R.G.D. 29, p. 32 [para. 66].

Weisberg, Robert, Defendant v. Witness: Measuring Confrontation and Compul­sory Process Rights Against Statutory Communications Privileges (1977-78), 30 Stan. L. Rev. 935, pp. 940 to 942 [para. 34].

White, Welsh S., Evidentiary Privileges and the Defendant's Constitutional Right to Introduce Evidence (1989), 80 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 377, pp. 423 to 425 [para. 46].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1961), vol. 8, s. 2285 [para. 40].

Williamson, Kim E., Confidentiality of Sexual Assault Victim-Counsellor Com­munication: A Proposed Model Statute (1984), 26 Ariz. L. Rev. 461, pp. 466, 467 [para. 55].

Counsel:

Freya Kristjanson and Diane Oleskiw, for the appellants;

Clayton C. Ruby, John Norris, David Paciocco and Chris Thompson, for the respondent;

Susan Chapman and Kenneth L. Campbell, for the intervenor, Her Majesty The Queen;

Donna Valgardson and Nancy L. Irving, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Marva J. Smith, for the intervenor, Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

Sheena Scott and David Mikelberg, for the intervenor, The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law;

Anne Derrick and Sharon McIvor, for the intervenors, Aboriginal Women's Coun­cil, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Dawn Ontario: Dis­abled Women's Network Ontario, and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF");

Alan D. Gold, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Diane Oleskiw, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Her Majesty The Queen;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Manitoba;

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law;

Buchan, Derrick and Ring, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervenor, Aboriginal Women's Council;

Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Dawn Ontario: Disabled Women's Network Ontario, and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers Associ­ation.

This appeal was heard on June 16, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on December 14, 1995, and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C., and Sopinka, J. (Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 2;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 3 to 107.