R. v. Heyden (J.C.) and Vanderheyden (W.A.), [1998] O.T.C. 16 (GD)

• Judge: McIsaac, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [1998] O.T.C. 16 (GD)

R. v. Heyden (J.C.), [1998] O.T.C. 16 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. DE.148

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

Barrie

McIsaac, J.

November 30, 1998.

Summary:

Heyden and Vanderheyden were charged with first degree murder. Heyden's estranged wife was an important Crown witness and advanced several statements by Heyden that were potentially incriminating. Heyden and his wife were involved in litigation as a result of their separation. The wife objected to being questioned on a document that she claimed constituted confidential instructions to her counsel in the matrimonial litigation. The document and others had been seized by police during a search of the former matrimonial property and eventually formed part of a compendious foundation for a forensic accounting report that was disclosed to defence counsel.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the Heyden's counsel was entitled to cross-examine the wife on "all of the material". Heyden's right to make full answer and defence outweighed the wife's right to privilege.

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 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Evidence - Topic 4253.3

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Loss of privilege - To permit full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 4.

Cases Noticed:

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

R. v. Shergill (S.) (1997), 22 O.T.C. 282 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

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 matter was heard by McIsaac, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on November 30, 1998.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.