Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2002) 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (SCC);2002 SCC 61;167 CCC (3d) 1;312 AR 201;164 OAC 280;216 DLR (4th) 257;3 CR (6th) 209;[2002] SCJ No 61 (QL);[2002] ACS no 61;56 DTC 7267;[2002] 11 WWR 191;[2002] 4 CTC 143;4 Alta LR (4th) 1;217 Nfld & PEIR 183;96 CRR (2d) 189;[2002] 3 SCR 209

Lavallee v. Can. (A.G.) (2002), 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (SCC);

    651 A.P.R. 183

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. SE.013

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz, Barristers and Solicitors, and Andrew Brent Polo (respondents) and the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General for Alberta, the Law Society of Alberta and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (interveners)

(27852)

White, Ottenheimer & Baker (appellants/cross-respondents) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent/cross-appellant) and the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General for Alberta and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (interveners)

(28144)

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Jeffrey Fink (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General for Alberta and the Canadian Bar Association (interveners)

(28385)

(2002 SCC 61; 2002 CSC 61)

Indexed As: Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

September 12, 2002.

Summary:

At issue was the constitutionality of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code, which set out the procedure for determining a claim of solicitor-client privilege in relation to docu­ments seized from a law office under a warrant. The issue was brought before the court by way of three separate appeals from the provinces of Alberta (Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)), Newfoundland and Labrador (White, Otten­heimer & Baker v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral)) and Ontario (R. v. Fink (J.)).

In Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), following a police search of a law office, the law firm applied to have s. 488.1 declared unconstitu­tional. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 218 A.R. 229, struck down s. 488.1 on the basis that it violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision re­ported at 255 A.R. 86; 220 W.A.C. 86, dismissed an appeal, affirming that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter. It was unneces­sary for the court to consider whether s. 488.1 violated s. 7 of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

In White, Ottenheimer & Baker v. Canada (Attorney General), Revenue Canada obtained a search warrant to search a law office. The law firm brought a constitutional challenge against s. 488.1. The Newfound­land Supreme Court, Trial Division, dis­missed the application. The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 190 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 576 A.P.R. 181, allowed an appeal in part. The court declared that s. 488.1 infringed s. 8 of the Charter, but used the remedial techniques of sever­ance and reading-in to salvage the impugned section. The law firm appealed. The Attor­ney General of Canada cross-appealed.

In R. v. Fink (J.), search warrants were executed at law offices in relation to an investigation of Fink for fraud. Fink applied for a declaration that s. 488.1 violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2000] O.T.C. 29, dismissed the application. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision re­ported at 138 O.A.C. 142, allowed an appeal, holding that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter. It was unnecessary for the court to consider whether s. 488.1 violated s. 7 of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter and had to be struck down. LeBel, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., dissenting in part, found that s. 488.1 was valid except for s. 488.1(4), which they found was unconstitutional. The court dismissed the appeals in Lavallee and Fink. The court allowed the appeal in White and set aside the Newfoundland Court of Appeal's decision to rewrite the impugned section. The cross-appeal in White was dismissed.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1623.1

Relationship with client - Duty of confi­dentiality (or professional secrecy) - Dis­closure to police - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3055 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreason­able search and seizure defined - Section 488.1 of the Criminal Code set out the procedure for determining a claim of sol­icitor-client privilege in relation to docu­ments seized from a law office under a warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 more than minimally impaired solici­tor-client privilege and therefore amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The court further concluded that s. 488.1 could not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter - While effective police investiga­tions were a press­ing and substantive concern, s. 488.1 could not be said to establish proportional means to achieve that objective inasmuch as it more than minimally impaired solicitor-client privi­lege - See paragraph 46.

Civil Rights - Topic 8316

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Proportionality test - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - Section 488.1 of the Criminal Code set out the procedure for determining a claim of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter - With respect to the remedy, the court stated that while some of the procedural shortcomings of s. 488.1 could be addressed by such techniques as severance or reading in, those shortcomings were not at the heart of the constitutional infirmity of the provision - Further, the process for seizing docu­ments in the possession of a lawyer was a delicate matter, which presented procedural options that were best left to Parliament - It also required that the legislation be carefully drafted - The court concluded that the proper course of action was to declare s. 488.1 unconstitutional and strike it down - See paragraph 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3055

Special powers - Search warrants - Execu­tion of - Law offices - Section 488.1 of the Criminal Code set out the procedure for determining a claim of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter and had to be struck down - In the interim, the court articulated the general principles that governed the legality of searches of law offices as a matter of common law until Parliament, if it saw fit, re-enacted legisla­tion on the issue - See paragraph 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 3055

Special powers - Search warrants - Execu­tion of - Law offices - Section 488.1 of the Criminal Code set out the procedure for determining a claim of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter where it more than minimally impaired solicitor-client privilege - One of the fatal features of s. 488.1 was the potential for breach of the solicitor-client privilege without the client's knowledge, let alone consent - By the operation of s. 488.1, solicitor-client privilege could be violated by the mere failure of counsel to act to claim the privi­lege, without instruction from or communi­cation with the client - Section 488.1 therefore allowed the solicitor-client confi­dentiality to be destroyed without the client's express and informed authorization, and even without the client's having an opportunity to be heard - See paragraphs 39 to 42.

Criminal Law - Topic 3055

Special powers - Search warrants - Execu­tion of - Law offices - Section 488.1 of the Criminal Code set out the procedure for determining a claim of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter where it more than minimally impaired solicitor-client privilege - One of the fatal features of s. 488.1 was the absence of judicial discretion in the determination of the validity of an asserted claim of privilege - The court stated that it could not see how one could read a residual judicial discre­tion in s. 488.1(6), which conferred an entitlement on the Crown to access the seized documents if an application had not been made, or had not been proceeded with, with the dispatch required by ss. 488.1(2) and 488.1(3) - The language was clear, "the judge shall" order the docu­ments released to the prosecution - That mandatory disclosure of potentially privi­leged information, in a case where the court had been alerted to the possibility of privilege by the fact that the documents were sealed at the point of search, could not be said to minimally impair the privi­lege - See paragraph 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 3055

Special powers - Search warrants - Execu­tion of - Law offices - Section 488.1 of the Criminal Code set out the procedure for determining a claim of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 488.1 violated s. 8 of the Charter where it more than minimally impaired solicitor-client privilege - The court found, inter alia, an unjustifiable impairment of the solicitor-privilege in the provision in s. 488.1(4)(b), which permitted the Attorney General to inspect the seized documents where the applications judge was of the opinion that it would materially assist him or her in deciding whether the document was privileged - Any benefit that might accrue to the administration of justice from the Crown's being in a better position to assist the court in determining the exis­tence of the privilege was greatly out­weighed by the risk of disclosing privi­leged information to the state in the con­duct of a criminal investigation - Section 488.1(4)(b) was unduly intrusive upon the privilege and of limited usefulness in determining its existence - See paragraph 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 3105

Special powers - Issue of search warrants -Privileged or confidential documents - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 3055 ].

Evidence - Topic 4245.3

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Law office searches - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 3055 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Claus (T.) et al. (2000), 140 O.A.C. 51; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Piersanti & Co., [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 284; [2001] G.S.T.C. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Several Clients and Several Solicitors (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 313; 590 A.P.R. 313 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Festing et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 159 B.C.A.C. 65; 259 W.A.C. 65; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Festing et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, appld. [paras. 11, 58].

R. v. Colvin; Ex parte Merrick (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 8 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Presswood v. International Chemalloy Corp. (1975), 11 O.R.(2d) 164 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Shell Canada Ltd., Re (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 70 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Director of Investigation and Research v. Shell Canada Ltd. - see Shell Canada Ltd., Re.

Borden & Elliot v. R. (1975), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 337 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

B.X. Development Inc. v. R. (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 14 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 16].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Brown (J.D.) (2002), 285 N.R. 201; 157 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1978] C.S. 792 (Que. S.C.), affd. (1980), 16 C.R.(3d) 188 (Que. C.A.), appld. [para. 17].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 23].

Thorson v. Jones (1973), 38 D.L.R.(3d) 312 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Festing et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [2000] B.C.T.C. 200; 31 C.R.(5th) 203 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 35].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [paras. 36, 69].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [paras. 36, 58].

R. v. Golden (I.V.) (2001), 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 36].

Maranda v. Quebec (Judge of the Court of Quebec) (2001), 161 C.C.C.(3d) 64 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 281 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 46].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 56].

Vidéotron Ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec produits élec­troniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 56].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. G.D.B., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520; 253 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 1; 225 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 65].

Fortin v. Barreau du Québec, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 500; 272 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 65].

Fortin v. Chrétien - see Fortin v. Barreau du Québec.

Andrews v. Law Society of British Colum­bia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 66].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Man­gat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 67].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 77].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 78].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 78].

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 78].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 78].

Sparham-Souter v. Town and Country Developments (Essex) Ltd., [1976] Q.B. 858 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Construction Gilles Paquette ltée v. Entre­prises Végo ltée, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 299; 212 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 488.1 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bloom, Lackland H., Jr., The Law Office Search: An Emerging Problem and Some Suggested Solutions (1980), 69 Geo. L.J. 1, p. 7 [para. 10].

Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of the Proceedings and Evidence (January 22, 1985), Issue No. 5, p. 5:9 [para. 11].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 24, Search and Seizure (1984), Rec­ommendation Seven, pp. 58, 60 [para. 44].

Chasse, Kenneth L., The Solicitor-Client Privilege and Search Warrants (1977), 36 C.R.N.S. 349, generally [para. 16].

Davis, John E., Law Office Searches: The Assault on Confidentiality and the Ad­versary System (1996), 33 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1251, generally [para. 10].

Hutchison, Scott C., Morton, James C., and Bury, Michael P., Search and Sei­zure Law in Canada (2002 Looseleaf Update) (Release 1), p. 10-17 [para. 15].

Kasting, Robert A., Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Solicitor-Client Privilege (1978), 24 McGill L.J. 115, generally [para. 16].

Manes, Ronald D., and Silver, Michael P., Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canadian Law (1993), p. 141 [para. 28].

Pinard, Danielle, Le principe d'interpréta­tion issu de la présomption de constitu­tionnalité et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (1990), 35 McGill L.J. 305, p. 328 [para. 56].

Stuart, Don, Charter Justice in Canadian Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 2001), pp. 24, 25, 245 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Robert J. Frater, Peter De Freitas and David Schermbrucker, for the appellant, Her Majesty the Queen, for the respon­dent/cross-appellant and the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

David G. Butcher and Michael J. Hewitt, for the respondents, Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz;

D. Mark Pike and Geoffrey L. Spencer, for the appellants/cross-respondents, White, Ottenheimer & Baker;

Richard Macklin and Aaron Harnet, for the respondent, Fink;

J. Michal Fairburn and Philip Downes, for the appellant and intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Benoît Lauzon and Gilles Laporte, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Que­bec;

Eric Tolppanen, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Lindsay MacDonald, Q.C., for the intervener, the Law Society of Alberta;

Anne S. Derrick, Q.C., Joel Pink, Q.C., and Shane Parker, for the intervener, the Federation of the Law Societies of Canada;

James L. Lebo, Q.C., for the intervener, the Canadian Bar Association.

Solicitors of Record:

The Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Her Majesty the Queen, and for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Singleton Urquhart Scott, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents, Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz;

Benson Myles, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the appellants/cross-respondents, White, Ottenheimer & Baker;

The Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent/cross-appel­lant, the Attorney General of Canada;

The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Falconer Charney Macklin, Toronto, Ontario; Aaron Harnet, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Fink;

The Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

The Attorney General of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

The Law Society of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, the Law Society of Alberta;

Beaton, Derrick & King, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Federation of the Law Societies of Canada;

McCarthy Tétrault, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, the Canadian Bar Associ­ation.

These appeals were heard on December 13, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastar­ache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on September 12, 2002, including the following opinions:

Arbour, J.(McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 51;

Lebel, J., dissenting in part (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 52 to 86.