Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General), (1996) 201 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Citation: (1996), 201 N.R. 241 (SCC),201 NR 241,[1996] SCJ No 85 (QL),[1996] 3 SCR 3,138 DLR (4th) 423,38 CRR (2d) 230,109 CCC (3d) 289,32 WCB (2d) 15,1996 CanLII 167 (SCC),1 CR (5th) 1
• Date: 12 September 1996
• Subject Matter: CRIMINAL LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS

Michaud v. Que. (A.G.) (1996), 201 N.R. 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]

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

Marc Michaud (appellant) v. The Attorney General of Quebec (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada and the Canadian Bar Association (interveners)

(23764)

Indexed As: Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

September 12, 1996.

Summary:

Michaud was the target of an authorized wiretap in 1993. No criminal charges had been laid against him. Michaud, hoping to pursue an action in damages for an unlawful wiretap search, filed a motion under s. 187(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for access to the sealed packet. He also sought dis­closure of the tape recordings and transcripts of his intercepted communications (the re­cording materials).

The Quebec Superior Court denied the motion on the ground that a non-accused target was not entitled to such an order under s. 187(1)(a)(ii). The court was also of the view that Michaud's motion was prema­ture as he should have waited to file the motion before the judge who would preside over his civil action. Michaud appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Que­bec Superior Court for reconsideration of Michaud's motion.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveil­lance - Interception of private communi­cations - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5275 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting materials (incl. access to sealed packet) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., held that where a non-accused target of a wiretap authori­zation applied under s. 187(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for access to the sealed packet, the discretion to grant access should only be exercised upon the presen­tation of some evidence that the initial authorization was obtained in an unlawful manner - See paragraphs 20 to 60 - La Forest, Sopinka, Cory and Major, JJ., held that where a non-accused target applied for access to the packet under s. 187(1)(a)(ii), judicial discretion must be automatically exercised in favour of grant­ing access because s. 8 of the Charter gave non-accused targets, like accused targets, a constitutional right of access to the sealed packet, subject to the judge's power to edit the documents - See paragraphs 79 to 102.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting materials (incl. access to sealed packet) - Under s. 187(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, a designated judge was vested with the authority to open the sealed packet of materials filed in relation to an application for a wiretap authorization - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C., stated that "the provision should be interpreted as permitting a judge to examine the contents of the packet in private for the restricted purpose of adjudicating a s. 187(1)(a)(ii) application. The confidentiality interests underlying the provision are simply not triggered when a competent judicial au­thority examines the contents of the packet in camera ... such an examination would be helpful in promptly disposing of a motion for access where the alleged de­ficiencies of the application are simply not borne out on the face of the application" - See paragraph 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275.1

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Access to re­cordings and transcripts of intercepted communications - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of whether a non-accused target of a wiretap authori­zation who had gained access to the sealed packet under s. 187(1)(a)(ii) of the Crimi­nal Code, could then gain access to the tape recordings and transcripts of the in­tercepted communications (the recording materials) - The court discussed the cir­cumstances in which subsequent disclosure of the recording materials should be made and the procedure for that disclosure - See paragraphs 61 to 68 and 104 to 117.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 231; 80 C.R.(3d) 299; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 50 C.R.R. 272; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 473; 36 Q.A.C. 258, consd. [para. 1].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison (1986), 29 C.C.C.(3d) 266 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Kumar (1987), 35 C.C.C.(3d) 477 (Sask. C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1987] 1 S.C.R. ix; 79 N.R. 395; 58 Sask.R. 80, refd to. [para. 14].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 17].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 240; 71 O.R.(2d) 575; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Lyons, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 631, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Lochiatto, Re (1974), 497 F.2d 803 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 29].

Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Interception of Wire Communications (1976), 413 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D. Pa.), refd to. [para. 29].

In the Matter of a Warrant Authorizing the Interception of Oral Communications (1983), 708 F.2d 27 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 29].

Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Interception of Oral Communications at the Premises Known as Calle Mayaguez 212, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico (1983), 723 F.2d 1022 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 29].

Commissioner of Inquiry, Re (1978), 13 A.R. 121; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 212 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Royal Commission Inquiry into the Ac­tivities of Royal American Shows Inc. (No. 3), Re - see Commissioner of Inquiry, Re.

R. v. Miller (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 257 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 30].

Stewart v. R. (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 391 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Kozak (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 235 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Haslam (1976), 12 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 35; 25 A.P.R. 35; 3 C.R.(3d) 248 (Nfld. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Welsh (No. 6) (1977), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 363 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Gill (1980), 18 C.R.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, consd. [para. 30].

Zaduk v. R. (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. H.C.), affd. 38 C.C.C.(2d) 349 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1979), 46 C.C.C.(2d) 327 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal granted [1980] 1 S.C.R. xiii, appeal discontinued [1986] 2 S.C.R. x, consd. [para. 33].

Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Interception of Wire and Oral Communications (1980), 495 F.Supp. 282 (E.D. La.), refd to. [para. 36].

Application of Kansas City Star (1981), 666 F.2d 1168 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 37].

Petition of Leppo (1974), 497 F.2d 954 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wiggins, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 62; 103 N.R. 118, refd to. [para. 42].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 42].

McGrady, Askew & Fiorillo v. Canada, [1995] 7 W.W.R. 305 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

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. 47].

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. 47].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Canada (Solicitor General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Con­fidentiality of Health Records in Ontario et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 494; 38 N.R. 588, refd to. [para. 48].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [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. 48].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 48].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 49].

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; 50 C.R.(3d) 395, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Johnson et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965; 174 N.R. 321; 76 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Laba - see R. v. Johnson et al.

R. v. Pontes (P.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44; 186 N.R. 81; 62 B.C.A.C. 241; 103 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385, refd to. [para. 49].

Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) et autres v. 143471 Canada Inc. et autres, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 339; 167 N.R. 321; 61 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 59 O.R.(2d) 352, consd. [para. 54].

R. v. Parmar (1987), 34 C.C.C.(3d) 260 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241; 36 Q.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 105].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 1 et seq.].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 187(1)(a)(ii) [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bellemare, Daniel A., L'écoute élec­tronique au Canada (1981), pp. 3 [para. 22]; 353 to 356 [para. 30].

Canada, Commission of Inquiry Con­cerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Second Report, Freedom and Security under the Law (1981)(MacDonald Report), vol. 1, p. 149 [para. 20].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Com­mittee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969)(Ouimet Report), generally [para. 20].

Canada, Solicitor General, Annual Report on the Use of Electronic Surveillance (1993), p. 22 [para. 51].

Carr, James G., The Law of Electronic Surveillance (1986 Looseleaf), vol. 2, § 7.2(b)(1), § 7.3(a)(2)(B), p. 7-38 [para. 37].

Chorney, N.M., Wiretapping and Elec­tronic Eavesdropping (1965), 7 C.L.Q. 434, generally [para. 20].

Cohen, Stanley A., Invasion of Privacy: Police and Electronic Surveillance in Canada (1983), pp. 97 [para. 30]; 209 [para. 114].

Fishman, Clifford S., Wiretapping and Eavesdropping (1978), § 220 [para. 37].

Jardine, James W., Defence Attacks, in Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, Search & Seizure and Wiretap (1991), c. 6.2, pp. 6.2.06-6.2.07 [para. 62].

MacDonald Report - see Canada, Com­mission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Second Report, Free­dom and Security under the Law (1981).

Ouimet Report - see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969).

Tanovich, David M., When does Stinch­combe Demand that the Crown Reveal the Identity of a Police Informer? (1995), 38 C.R.(4th) 202, generally [para. 48].

United States Senate Report No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 2194 [para. 35].

Watt, David, Law of Electronic Surveil­lance in Canada (1979), pp. 1 [para. 22]; 248 to 252 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Christian Desrosiers, for the appellant;

Stella Gabbino, for the respondent;

Bernard Laprade, for the intervener, At­torney General of Canada;

Margaret A. Ross and Todd J. Burke, for the intervener, Canadian Bar As­sociation.

Solicitors of Record:

Desrosiers, Groulx, Turcotte, Latulippe, Marchand, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Stella Gabbino, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

The Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Canadian Bar Association.

This appeal was heard on January 25, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on September 12, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 69;

La Forest and Sopinka, JJ. (Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 70 to 121;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraph 122.