R. v. Chapelstone Dev. Inc.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Turnbull, Robertson and Richard, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 NBCA 96
• Date: 02 December 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

R. v. Chapelstone Dev. Inc. (2004), 277 N.B.R.(2d) 350 (CA);

    277 R.N.-B.(2e) 350; 727 A.P.R. 350

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.007

Chapelstone Developments Inc., Action Motors Ltd., Clyde Hamilton and Dale Hamilton (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (respondent)

(191/03/CA; 2004 NBCA 96)

Indexed As: R. v. Chapelstone Developments Inc. et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Turnbull, Robertson and Richard, JJ.A.

December 2, 2004.

Summary:

In a tax evasion case, the Crown invoked solicitor-client privilege and objected to the disclosure of three legal opinions. One of those opinions was inadvertently disclosed. The Crown also objected to the disclosure of two documents that revealed the identities of other taxpayers who were either audited or investigated but not charged. In a pre-trial decision that did not include reasons, the trial judge ordered that the five documents be disclosed. The Crown applied for judicial review.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 2003 NBQB 417, allowed the application. The accused appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7102 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The New Brunswick Court of Ap­peal discussed the Crown's duty to disclose information - See paragraphs 27, 28, 36 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - In a tax evasion case, the Crown objected to the disclosure of two docu­ments that revealed the identities of other taxpayers who were either audited or in­vestigated but not charged - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the objection - Disclosure was not required under the Stinchcombe (S.C.C.) rules and the information referred to in the two documents was clearly irrelevant to any defence that the accused might raise - See paragraphs 31 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 7102

Extraordinary remedies - General - When available - In a tax evasion case, the Crown invoked solicitor-client privilege and objected to the disclosure of three legal opinions - The Crown also objected to the disclosure of two documents that revealed the identities of other taxpayers who were either audited or investigated but not charged - In a pre-trial decision that did not include reasons, the trial judge ordered that the five documents be dis­closed - A reviewing judge quashed that decision - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the reviewing judge's deci­sion - Ruling on the availability of judicial review as a remedy against a pre-trial decision, the court held: "... judicial review of a pre-trial decision should be permitted in circumstances where it can be shown that no adequate remedy was available to remedy a wrong committed with respect to persons who were not parties to the crim­inal proceedings nor have any involvement with the case" - The court also held that the trial judge's failure to give reasons was not a jurisdictional error - The court was not prepared to hold that the trial judge's failure to provide reasons was a sufficient basis on which to declare that judicial review was available - See paragraphs 11 to 30.

Evidence - Topic 4253.3

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Loss of privilege - To permit full answer and defence (incl. McClure applications) - In a tax evasion case, the Crown invoked solicitor-client privilege and objected to the disclosure of three legal opinions prepared by its in-house counsel - The accused invoked the innocence-at-stake exception and sought disclosure - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the innocence-at-stake argument had no validity in law - The accused made no effort to address the threshold test in McClure, let alone the two-stage test (evidentiary basis for the existence of a reasonable-doubt-raising communication and likeliness of that com­munication raising a reasonable doubt) to be applied when adjudicating on the ap­plication of the innocence-at-stake excep­tion - As to the threshold test, the accused had to establish that the information sought from the solicitor-client communication was not available from any other source and that the accused was otherwise unable to raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt - Here, the accused had no idea of what was contained in the privileged communica­tions, let alone a basis for main­taining that the information was not avail­able from another source or for that matter whether it raised a reasonable doubt as to their guilt - See paragraphs 61 to 77.

Evidence - Topic 4258

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Waiver - By inadvertent or partial disclosure - In a tax evasion case, the Crown invoked solicitor-client privilege and objected to the disclosure of three legal opinions that included one prepared by lawyer Leslie and another prepared by lawyer Russell - The Leslie opinion referred to the Russell opinion - The accused argued that solicitor-client was waived because of the inadvertent disclosure of the Leslie opinion - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled that the accused were not entitled to disclosure of the two opinions on the ground of waiver - The court held that the inadvertent disclo­sure of the Leslie opinion (privileged communication) did not constitute an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege with respect to referenced information that was itself privileged - This was true even though the Crown appeared to have implic­itly waived the claim to privilege with respect to the Leslie opinion - From the outset, the Crown consistently maintained that it was not prepared to disclose other privileged information - Moreover, it was apparent that this was not a case in which disclosure of part was likely to mislead the court or the accused - Here, a waiver of part did not constitute a waiver of all - See paragraphs 42 to 60.

Cases Noticed:

Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Can­ada and Minister of National Revenue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Russell (D.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 804; 274 N.R. 247; 150 O.A.C. 99, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268; 32 N.R. 520, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Dubois, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 366; 66 N.R. 289; 41 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. V.D. (1999), 127 O.A.C. 382; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 541 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Deschamplain (D.) (2003), 168 O.A.C. 389; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 22].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 23].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Vil­lage) (2004), 323 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Barrett (D.) (1993), 64 O.A.C. 99; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 25].

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. 25].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Laporte (R.A.) et al. (1993), 113 Sask.R. 34; 52 W.A.C. 34; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

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. 36].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Brown (J.D.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 185; 285 N.R. 201; 157 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757; 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (2004), 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 45].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 45].

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. 45].

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. 45].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 164 O.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 46].

Bell et al. v. Smith et al., [1968] S.C.R. 664, refd to. [para. 46].

Calcraft v. Guest, [1898] 1 Q.B. 759, refd to. [para. 49].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Lee and Fishman (1992), 127 A.R. 236; 20 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 255 A.R. 86; 220 W.A.C. 86 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 51].

Stevens v. Prime Minister (Can.) (1998), 228 N.R. 142 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Metcalfe et al. v. Metcalfe (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 207; 238 W.A.C. 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

J.M.N.C. et al. v. Child and Family Ser­vices of Central Winnipeg (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 82; 149 W.A.C. 82 (C.A.), consd. [para. 53].

Great Atlantic Insurance Co. v. Home Insurance Co. and Others, [1981] 2 All E.R. 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Power Consolidated (China) Pulp Inc. v. British Columbia Resources Investment Corp., [1989] 2 W.W.R. 679 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Leipert (R.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281; 207 N.R. 145; 85 B.C.A.C. 162; 138 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 68 C.C.C.(2d) 13 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Derby Magistrates' Court; Ex parte B., [1995] 4 All E.R. 526; 189 N.R. 199 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Guilbride, [2001] B.C.J. No. 2000 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2002), 323 A.R. 297 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Creswell (F.A.) (2000), 146 B.C.A.C. 7; 239 W.A.C. 7; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

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. 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 10-1 [para. 48].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 184 [para. 50].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 767 [para. 54].

Counsel:

David R. Oley, for the appellants;

Peter H. MacPhail, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 18, 2004, by Turnbull, Robertson and Richard, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on De­cember 2, 2004, by Robertson, J.A.