R. v. Heyden (J.C.) and Vanderheyden (W.A.), (1998) 94 O.T.C. 31 (GD)

• Judge: McIsaac, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 24, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 94 O.T.C. 31 (GD)

R. v. Heyden (J.C.) (1998), 94 O.T.C. 31 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. AP.062

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jack Cornelius Heyden and William Anthony Vanderheyden

Indexed As: R. v. Heyden (J.C.) and Vanderheyden (W.A.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

McIsaac, J.

January 16, 28 and February 24, 1998.

Summary:

Heyden and Vanderheyden were charged with first degree murder. Heyden's estranged wife was an important Crown witness. Heyden and his wife were involved in litigation as a result of their separation. The accused applied for production of the wife's solicitor's files related to the matrimonial breakdown. The wife opposed the production, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the application subject to judicial vetting. In supplementary reasons (see paragraphs 15 to 21), the court ordered the accused to pay the costs of photocopying the files. In further reasons (see paragraphs 22 to 24), the court held that it was proper for the wife's solicitor to request a confidentiality undertaking from the law firm that represented Vanderheyden (Heyden's counsel agreed to the undertaking).

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 129.1

General principles - Rights of accused - Duty respecting disclosed information - See paragraphs 22 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 5372

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Documents in possession of third parties - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5382

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Legal records of witness - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Evidence - Topic 4106

Witnesses - Privilege - Waiver of privilege - See paragraph 9.

Evidence - Topic 4107

Witnesses - Privilege - Disclosure of material for which privilege claimed - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Evidence - Topic 4258

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Waiver - By partial disclosure - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

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; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, folld. [para. 6].

Von Bulow, Re (1987), 828 F.2d 94, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Shergill (S.) (1997), 22 O.T.C. 282 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Descôteaux et Centre Communautaire Juridique de Montréal v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590, refd to. [para. 13].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Lee and Fishman (1992), 127 A.R. 236; 20 W.A.C. 236; 9 C.P.C.(3d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Blencowe (A.) (1997), 41 O.T.C. 181; 9 C.R.(5th) 320 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

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. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, generally [para. 24].

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario (Attorney General), Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge, Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (The Martin Committee).

Ontario (Attorney General), Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (The Martin Committee Report) (1993) [para. 18].

Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, para. 2327, p. 638 [para. 5].

Counsel:

M. Martin and L. McConnery, for the Crown;

P. Connelly, for the accused, Heyden;

T. Breen and J. Bliss, for the accused, Vanderheyden.

This voir dire was heard before McIsaac, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on January 16, 28 and February 24, 1998.