R. v. Mantyka (D.) et al., (1999) 185 Sask.R. 243 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Whelan, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 185 Sask.R. 243 (ProvCt)

R. v. Mantyka (D.) (1999), 185 Sask.R. 243 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.030

Her Majesty the Queen v. Don Mantyka, Kriscott Marketing Ltd. and Merchant Sampler Promotions Ltd.

(Information No. 1593644)

Indexed As: R. v. Mantyka (D.) et al.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Whelan, P.C.J.

October 25, 1999.

Summary:

The defence applied for disclosure and production of documents over which the Crown claimed "informer privilege". A preliminary issue was also raised regarding the court's jurisdiction to hear this applica­tion under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court ruled that it had the necessary jurisdiction under the Act, but that it had insufficient informa­tion regarding the documents. The court ordered their production to the court without obligation to describe or release any part of them to the defence.

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See Evidence - Topic 4150 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Evidence - Topic 4150 ].

Evidence - Topic 4107.1

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Public interest privilege - [See Evidence - Topic 4150 ].

Evidence - Topic 4150

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Identity of police informants - The defence applied for disclosure and produc­tion of documents over which the Crown claimed "informer privilege" - The defence argued the "innocence at stake" exception, and relied upon s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act - The Crown main­tained that the privi­lege claimed was not public interest privi­lege and therefore was apart from s. 37 of the Act - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that s. 37 applied, but that it had insufficient information regarding the documents - The court ordered their pro­duction to the court on the understanding that there was no obligation to describe or release any part of them to the defence.

Cases Noticed:

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. 14].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Sander (1994), 44 B.C.A.C. 200; 71 W.A.C. 200; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Richards (M.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 215; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Bisaillon and Keable et al., Re (1980), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 340 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Desjardins et al. (No. 4) (1990), 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143; 274 A.P.R. 143; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Palmer v. Gray et al. (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 208; 39 W.A.C. 208; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [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. 19].

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; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 385, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Scott (1990), 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Hunter (1987), 19 O.A.C. 131; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Petersen (S.H.) (1997), 155 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Melnychuk, [1998] S.J. No. 710, refd to. [para. 26].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 505; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 462; 38 C.R.(4th) 133; [1995] 5 W.W.R. 129, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Anderson, [1999] S.J. No. 331, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sako's Holdings Ltd., [1999] S.J. No. 448, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 37 [para. 15].

Counsel:

H. Dahlem, Q.C., for the Crown;

T. Priel, Q.C., for the accused.

This application was heard before Whelan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provin­cial Court, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on October 25, 1999.