R. v. Mills (B.J.), (1999) 244 A.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: , McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 244 A.R. 201 (SCC)

R. v. Mills (B.J.) (1999), 244 A.R. 201 (SCC);

    209 W.A.C. 201

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: [1999] A.R. TBEd. NO.048

L.C. (the complainant) and the Attorney General for Alberta (appellants) v. Brian Joseph Mills (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Child and Adolescent Services Association, the Criminal Lawyer's Association (Ontario), Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, the Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centres and The Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton (interveners)

(26358)

Indexed As: R. v. Mills (B.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory * , McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

November 25, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of unlawful sexual touching. The accused sought dis­closure of therapeutic records related to the complainant but not in possession of the Crown. Bill C-46, which subsequently came into effect, amended the Criminal Code by adding a legislative scheme for the produc­tion of the private records of complainants and witnesses in sexual offence proceedings (ss. 278.1 to 278.91). The accused argued that ss. 278.1 to 278.91 violated his ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights. The accused claimed that the provisions impaired his ability to make full answer and defence and therefore deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 205 A.R. 321, held that the accused's ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights were breached by ss. 278.1 to 278.91. The parties subsequently made submissions as to whether the Charter infringements were justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 207 A.R. 161, held that the infringements were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter and that the entirety of the Criminal Code amendments in ss. 278.1 to 278.91 must be struck down. The com­plainant obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal. The court held that ss. 278.1 to 178.91 did not violate the accused's ss. 7 or 11(d) Charter rights.

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legisla­tive regime for the production of records of complainants or witnesses in sexual offence proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the privacy rights of complainants and witnesses that arose under the regime - See paragraphs 61 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he right of the accused to make full answer and defence is a core principle of fundamental justice, but it does not automatically entitle the accused to gain access to information contained in the private records of com­plainants and witnesses. Rather, the scope of the right to make full answer and defence must be determined in light of privacy and equality rights of complainants and witnesses. It is clear that the right to full answer and defence is not engaged where the accused seeks information that will only serve to distort the truth-seeking purpose of a trial, and in such a situation, privacy and equality rights are paramount. On the other hand, where the information contained in a record directly bears on the right to make full answer and defence, privacy rights must yield to the need to avoid convicting the innocent. Most cases, however, will not be so clear, and in as­sessing applications for production courts must determine the weight to be granted to the interests protected by privacy and full answer and defence in the particular cir­cumstances of each case. Full answer and defence will be more centrally implicated where the information contained in a record is part of the case to meet or where its potential probative value is high. A complainant's privacy interest is very high where the confidential information con­tained in a record concerns the com­plainant's personal identity or where the confidentiality of the record is vital to protect a therapeutic relationship." - See paragraph 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1444 ].

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 - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed an accused's right to make full answer and defence - The court stated that "[f]irst, the right to make full answer and defence is crucial to ensuring that the innocent are not convicted. To that end, courts must consider the danger of placing the accused in a Catch-22 situation as a condition of making full answer and defence, and will even override competing considerations in order to protect the right to make full answer and defence in certain circum­stances ... Second, the accused's right must be defined in a context that includes other principles of fundamental justice and Char­ter provisions. Third, full answer and defence does not include the right to evi­dence that would distort the search for truth inherent in the trial process." - See paragraphs 53 to 60.

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 - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records of complainants or wit­nesses in sexual offence proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an argu­ment that the definition of "record" was too broad and violated an accused's right to make full answer and defence - The defi­nition's coverage was limited to "records in which there was a reasonable expectation of privacy" - The mere fact that the records were in the ambit of the regime did not, in itself, prevent the accused from obtaining access to them - It was the procedures for determining what records had to be dis­closed and not the spectrum of records subject to these pro­cedures that determined the fairness or constitutionality of the legislation - See paragraphs 81 to 85.

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 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that R. v. Stinchcombe (S.C.C.), acknowledging that the Crown had greater access to certain types of information than an accused, imposed a duty on the Crown to disclose all relevant information to the defence - The court stated that "[t]he goal behind imposing this duty upon the Crown was not, however, to ensure equivalency of treatment between the accused and the Crown. Rather, the duty to disclose was imposed to advance the overall fairness, justice, efficacy, and truth finding elements of criminal proceedings. Since the right to full answer and defence must be defined in light of other principles of fundamental justice, that right is not an absolute one. ... Stinchcombe and [R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (S.C.C.)] accept that it is constitutionally permissible for the Crown to be subject to different treatment, to different procedures, or even to end up with documents that the accused has not seen, as long as the accused can make full answer and defence and the trial is fundamentally fair" - See paragraph 96.

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 - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records of complainants or wit­nesses in sexual offence proceedings - Sec­tion 278.2(2) provided that the regime ap­plied where a record was in the pos­session or control of any person - An accused ar­gued that s. 278.2(2) allowed the Crown to possess records without having to disclose them to the accused and, therefore, vio­lated his right to make full answer and defence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the fact that s. 278.2 might result in the Crown holding documents that the accused did not possess did not of itself deprive the accused of the right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 86 to 100.

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 - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records of complainants or wit­nesses in sexual offence proceedings - Section 278.3(4) listed a series of "as­sertions" that could not "on their own" establish that a record was likely relevant -An accused alleged that s. 278.3(4) vio­lated his right to make full answer and defence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the purpose of s. 278.3(4) was to prevent speculative and unmeritorious production requests by preventing reliance on bare assertions of the listed matters - An accused could rely on the assertions in s. 278.3(4) where there was an evidentiary or informational foundation to suggest that they may be related to likely relevance - However, the trial judge was the ultimate arbitrator in determining whether the likely relevant threshold had been met - See paragraphs 101 to 105.

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 - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records of complainants or wit­nesses in sexual offence proceedings - The regime created a two stage procedure for gaining access to documents - At the first stage, the issue was whether the docu­ment should be produced to the judge - Section 278.5(1) required an accused to demon­strate that the information was "like­ly relevant" and that the production of the record was "necessary in the interests of justice" - Section 278.5(2) specified factors to be taken into account - An accused ar­gued that s. 278.5 violated an accused's right to make full answer and defence be­cause the balancing of the interests could not properly be done without reviewing the documents in question - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument - See paragraphs 106 to 122.

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 - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records of complainants or wit­nesses in sexual offence proceedings - The regime created a two stage procedure for gaining access to documents - At the first stage, the issue was whether the docu­ment should be produced to the judge - At the second stage, the trial judge looked at the docu­ment to determine whether it should be disclosed to the accused - In deter­mining whether to disclose the docu­ment, the trial judge had to take into account, inter alia, society's interest in the reporting of sexual assaults and the obtain­ing of treatment for sexual assault victims and the effect of the determination on the integrity of the trial process - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the consider­ation of these factors did not violate an accused's right to full answer and defence - See paragraphs 123 to 128.

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 sec­ond Civil Rights - Topic 1444 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5514

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral principles and definitions - Charter, s. 15 - Effect of - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the production of records of complainants or witnesses in sexual offence proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the equality concerns that arose under the regime - See para­graphs 74 to 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 5645

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Sexual offences - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5514 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Charter rights must be examined in a contextual manner to resolve conflicts between them. Therefore, unlike s. 1 balancing, where societal in­terests are sometimes allowed to override Charter rights, under s. 7 rights must be defined so that they do not conflict with each other. The rights of full answer and defence, and privacy, must be defined in light of each other, and both must be defined in light of the equality provisions of s. 15." - See paragraphs 5 and 45 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of unlaw­ful sexual touching - Bill C-46, which subsequently came into effect on May 12, 1997, amended the Criminal Code by adding a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records in sexual offence pro­ceedings (ss. 278.1 to 278.91) - The accused challenged ss. 278.1 to 278.91 arguing that the regime violated his ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights - The accused did not apply for records under the new pro­visions - The Crown argued that the appli­cation was premature and lacked an adequate factual foundation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the application was not premature - Although there was no actual application, there was a sufficient factual basis to decide the issues raised - See paragraphs 19 to 26.

Civil Rights - Topic 8586

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Method of raising Charter issues - Requirement of factual foundation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8584 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8661

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5514 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 403

Powers of Parliament and the legislatures -General - Codification of judge-made law consistent with Constitution - Parliament passed Bill C-46, which established a regime for the production of private records of complainants and witnesses in sexual offence proceedings - An accused and supporting intervenors argued that Bill C-46 was unconstitutional to the extent that it established a regime that differed from or was inconsistent with the common law regime established in R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (S.C.C.) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament's law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the court's de­cision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the court's rulings, so the court must respect Parliament's determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish con­formity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy" - See para­graph 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1444 , first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1444 , second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Civil Rights - Topic 3133 and Criminal Law - Topic 691.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Production of complainant's records (incl. medical and counselling) - Bill C-46 amended the Criminal Code by creating a legislative regime for the production of private records of complainants or witnesses in sexual offence proceedings (ss. 278.1 to 278.91) - Section 278.2(2) provided that the regime did not apply where the com­plainant or witness expressly waived the application of the sections - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[w]here a fully informed complainant expressly waives the protection of the legislation, by declaration or by voluntarily providing her records to the Crown, the Bill C-46 pro­cedure does not apply and the records are producible as at common law" - See para­graphs 90 and 98.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Production of complainant's records (incl. medical and counselling) - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1444 , second, fifth, sixth and seventh Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 691.2

Sexual offences - Evidence - Records disclosure hearing - Practice - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the produc­tion of records of complainants or wit­nesses in sexual offence proceedings - The regime created a two stage procedure for gaining access to documents - At the first stage, the issue was whether the docu­ment should be produced to the judge - The judge could hear witnesses but they were not compellable - The Supreme Court of Canada stated, without deciding the issue, that "the fact that witnesses are not com­pellable must be viewed in light of the pre­liminary, investigatory nature of the pro­cess at this stage and the other sources upon which the judge can draw in as­sessing whether the documents may be relevant and whether their production is necessary to the interests of justice ... While [R. v. Stinchcombe (S.C.C.)] af­firmed the right of the defence to obtain documents in the possession of the Crown which may be relevant to the defence, it did not suggest that the defence should have the right to examine witnesses on what documents are relevant. The common law has never compelled witnesses to testi­fy as to records at the investigatory stage ... The fact that witnesses are not com­pellable under s. 278.4(2) is consistent, at the very least, with the common law tra­dition and with Stinchcombe. Moreover ..., trial judges retain a broad discretion under s. 278.5(1) to order production. We must presume that Parliament intended for trial judges to exercise that discretion in a man­ner consistent with the Charter prin­ciples discussed above." - See paragraph 107.

Criminal Law - Topic 693

Sexual offences - Evidence - Recent fabri­cation of complaint - Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Criminal Code created a legislative regime for the production of records of complainants or witnesses in sexual offence proceedings - Section 278.3(4) listed a series of "assertions" that could not "on their own" establish that a record was likely relevant - One of the as­sertions was "that the record relates to the presence or absence of a recent complaint" - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that "'re­cent complaint' had been abolished by the jurisprudence and cannot be relied on in any event, quite apart from the section" - See paragraph 104.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See third and fourth Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5366

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Psychiatric or counselling records - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1444 , second, fifth, sixth and seventh Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5380

Evidence - Witnesses - Documents and reports - Medical records of witness - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1444 , second, fifth, sixth and seventh Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Statutes - Topic 5943

Operation and effect - Effect on common law - Codifications - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 403 ].

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; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, consd. [paras. 1, 134].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 1].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 4].

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. 6].

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; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [paras. 12, 132].

L.L.A. v. Beharriell, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536; 190 N.R. 329; 88 O.A.C. 241; 103 C.C.C.(2d) 92; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 44 C.R.(4th) 91, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Weekseekase (W.W.) (1997), 161 Sask.R. 264 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. G.C.B. (1997), 47 O.T.C. 73 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Fiddler, [1998] O.J. No. 5819 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. D.H.C. (1998), 163 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 116; 503 A.P.R. 116 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. O'Neill (G.J.) (1998), 172 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 136; 528 A.P.R. 136 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. E.M.F. (1997), 76 O.T.C. 315 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lee (J.) (1997), 43 O.T.C. 373; 35 O.R.(3d) 594 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. E.H., [1998] O.T.C. Uned. 120 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. G.J.A. (1997), 46 O.T.C. 397 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 124; 15 C.R.(4th) 66, refd to. [para. 21].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 43 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board (N.B.), New Brunswick (Attorney Gen­eral) and Saskatchewan (Attorney Gen­eral), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328, refd to. [para. 22].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250; 50 C.R.R. 59; 74 O.R.(2d) 763; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 686, refd to. [para. 22].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Reve­nue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 510; 18 C.R.(4th) 274, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 82; 61 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 41].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 42].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 46].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492; 20 C.R.(4th) 57; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 80 C.R.(3d) 299, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843; 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366; 12 C.R.(4th) 237; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 53].

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; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 53].

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. 55].

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, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 55].

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. 55].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Endicott, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 155; 156 N.R. 321; 141 A.R. 353; 46 W.A.C. 353; 12 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 462; 23 C.R.(4th) 357, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Vu - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

Marks v. Beyfus (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 494 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300; 2 C.R.(4th) 53, refd to. [para. 59].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 59].

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. 61].

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. 61].

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; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 530; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 568, refd to. [para. 61].

Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Potash et Sélection Milton, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406; 168 N.R. 241; 61 Q.A.C. 241; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 315, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136, refd to. [para. 63].

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; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Fasciano - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 287; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203, refd to. [para. 65].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 68].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V. (1994), 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 69, 140].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 69].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 69].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 478; 26 C.R.(4th) 1; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1998), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 230; 532 A.P.R. 230 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Boudreau (A.) (1998), 71 O.T.C. 269 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Hurrie (D.A.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. H38; 12 C.R.(5th) 180 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Stromner (G.) (1997), 205 A.R. 385 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. J.F.G., [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 47 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 193; 45 M.V.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 135].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 140].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Johnson et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965; 174 N.R. 321; 76 O.A.C. 241; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 145].

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

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 11(d), sect. 15(1) [para. 16].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 278.1, sect. 278.2, sect. 278.3, sect. 278.4, sect. 278.5, sect. 278.6, sect. 278.7, sect. 278.8, sect. 278.9, sect. 278.91 [para. 16].

Criminal Code Amendment Act, Bill C-46, sect. 1 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Birks, Peter, Privacy and Loyalty (1997), pp. 26, 27 [para. 65].

Busby, Karen, Discriminatory Uses of Personal Records in Sexual Violence Cases (1997), 9 C.J.W.L. 148, pp. 161, 162 [para. 76].

Busby, Karen, Third Party Records Cases Since R. v. O'Connor: A Preliminary Analysis, A Study funded by the Research and Statistics Section, Depart­ment of Justice Canada (July 1998), generally [para. 97].

Donald Marshall Jr., Prosecution Report - see Nova Scotia, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution Report, Findings and Recommendations (1989).

Feldman, David J., Privacy-related Rights: Their Social Value, In Peter Birks, Pri­vacy and Loyalty (1997), pp. 26, 27 [para. 65].

Fried, Charles, Privacy (1967-68), 77 Yale L.J. 475, pp. 477, 478 [para. 65].

Hogg, Peter W., and Bushell, Allison A., The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75, generally [para. 41].

Holmes, Heather J., An Analysis of Bill C-46, Production of Records in Sexual Offence Proceedings (1997), 2 Can. Crim. L.R. 71, p. 86 [para. 97].

Kelly, Katharine D., "You must be crazy if you think you were raped:" Reflections on the Use of Complainants' Personal and Therapy Records in Sexual Assault Trials (1997), 9 C.J.W.L. 178, generally [para. 97].

Nova Scotia, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr., Prosecution Report, Findings and Recommendations (1989), vol. 1, p. 238 [para. 54].

Rachel, James, Why Privacy is Important (1975), 4 Phil. and Public Affairs 323, generally [para. 65].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, p. 527, §2285 [para. 67].

Counsel:

Mary A. Marshall and Teresa L. Meadows, for the appellant, L.C.;

James A. Bowron, for the appellant, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Dennis Edney and Robert Shaigec, for the respondent;

Graham M. Garton, Q.C., and Donna Valgardson, for the intervener, the At­torney General of Canada;

Susan Chapman and Christine Bartlett-Hughes, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Daniel Grégoire and Jacques Gauvin, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Denise C. Smith, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Marva J. Smith, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

W.J. Scott Bell, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Catherine C. Flanagan, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island (written submissions only);

Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Aleck H. Trawick, Q.C., and Emi Bossio, for the intervener, the Canadian Mental Health Association;

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., for the intervener, the Canadian Psychiatric Association;

Bruce F. Hughson and Claire M. Klassen, for the intervener, the Child and Adoles­cent Services Association;

David M. Porter and Danielle T. Miller, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Guy Cournoyer, for the intervener, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense;

Anne S. Derrick and Peggy Kobly, for the intervener, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Patricia D.S. Jackson and Sherri A. Pinsler, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

David M. Paciocco, for the intervener, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers;

Sheilah Martin, Q.C., for the intervener, the Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centres;

Dale Gibson and Ritu Khullar, for the intervener, the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton.

Solicitors of Record:

Cook Duke Cox, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant, L.C.;

Alberta Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Edney, Hattersley & Dolphin, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent;

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

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Public Prosecution Service (Appeals), Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

The Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the At­torney General of Manitoba;

The Ministry of Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

The Attorney General, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island;

The Deputy Attorney General, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, the Canadian Mental Health Association;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Psychiatric Association;

Emery Jamieson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Child and Adolescent Services Association;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Guy Cournoyer, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense;

Buchan, Derrick & Ring, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Edelson & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers;

Evans Martin Wilson, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, the Alberta Association of Sexual Assault Centres;

Dale Gibson Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton.

This appeal was heard on January 19, 1999, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory * , McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on November 25, 1999, including the following opinions:

McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 130;

Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 131 to 146.

* Cory, J., took no part in the judgment.