R. v. Shalala (R.), (1997) 197 N.B.R.(2d) 304 (TD)

• Judge: Landry, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: August 18, 1997
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1997), 197 N.B.R.(2d) 304 (TD)

R. v. Shalala (R.) (1997), 197 N.B.R.(2d) 304 (TD);

    197 R.N.-B.(2e) 304; 504 A.P.R. 304

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: [1998] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.038

Her Majesty The Queen v. Raymond Shalala

(M/M/144/93; M/M/333/95)

Indexed As: R. v. Shalala (R.)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Landry, J.

August 18, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was charged with conspiracy to import a narcotic and laundering the proceeds of crime. The defence brought a motion for the exclusion from evidence of all documents seized or taken from a law­yer's office on the grounds that the docu­ments were obtained in a manner which violated ss. 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, denied the motion.

Criminal Law - Topic 2801

Jurisdiction - General - Documents were seized from a lawyer's office in Nova Scotia pursuant to a search warrant - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, denied a motion to exclude the documents from evidence at a criminal trial - The court found, inter alia, that the lawyer did not make a claim of privilege - The court also found that it had jurisdic­tion to make a finding that the lawyer made no claim of privilege, although it agreed that if a privilege had been claimed it would have had to have been adjudicated upon in Nova Scotia - See paragraphs 16 to 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 3055

Special powers - Search warrants - Execu­tion of - Law offices - [See first Evidence - Topic 4236 ].

Evidence - Topic 4236

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - When privilege may be invoked - The accused was charged with conspiracy to import a narcotic and laun­dering the proceeds of crime - The defence brought a motion for the exclusion from evidence of all documents seized from a lawyer's office on the grounds that the documents were obtained in violation of ss. 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Charter - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, denied the motion - The court found: (1) that the lawyer did not make a claim of privilege; (2) that there was no breach of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code; (3) that a claim of privilege could not be invoked in respect of any communications or documents which were used to facilitate the use of the lawyer's trust account to deposit and withdraw large sums of cash - See paragraphs 16 to 20.

Evidence - Topic 4236

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - When privilege may be invoked - Certain documents were seized from a lawyer's office pursuant to a search warrant - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that a claim of privilege could not be invoked in respect of communications or documents in the lawyer's possession which were used to facilitate the use of the lawyer's trust account to deposit and withdraw large sums of cash - Such information was of an accounting nature and was not professional communications made in a professional capacity - Privilege did not apply where legal advice was neither sought nor pro­vided - See paragraphs 20 to 23.

Evidence - Topic 4236

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - When privilege may be invoked - An accused sought to exclude from evidence certain documents which were seized from a lawyer's office - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that a claim of privi­lege could not be invoked with respect to a group of documents which were of an accounting nature and were not pro­fessional communications made in a pro­fessional capacity - While the matter was not as clear with respect to another group of documents, the court held that they should also be admitted because: (1) no claim of privilege was made at the time of the search and seizure; (2) no formal claim was made in the five years that had passed; (3) there was a connection between this group of documents and the first group; (4) none of the documents were specifi­cally and clearly communications whereby legal advice was sought or provided; and (5) there was no clear evidence that the documents were privileged - See paragraph 24.

Evidence - Topic 4237

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Documents - General - [See all Evidence - Topic 4236 ].

Evidence - Topic 4245.3

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Law office searches - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2801 and all Evidence - Topic 4236 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gowling & Henderson v. Canada (Attor­ney General) (1982), 38 O.R.(2d) 227; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 327 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 4].

Cox, Taylor, Brant v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 3 W.W.R. 68 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Solicitor, Re (1962), 36 D.L.R.(2d) 594 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Helman v. Minister of National Revenue (1970), 15 D.L.R.(3d) 753 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Casey, [1995] O.J. No. 2788, refd to. [para. 4].

Borden & Elliot v. R. (1975), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 337; 13 O.R.(2d) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Kotapski (1981), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 78 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Shell Canada Ltd., Re, [1975] F.C. 184; 7 N.R. 157; 22 C.C.C.(2d) 70 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Giguère (1978), 44 C.C.C.(2d) 525 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Bell et al. v. Smith et al. (1968), 68 D.L.R.(2d) 751 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Lee Kun, [1915] Cr. App. Rep. 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Korponey v. Canada (Attorney General), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493; 19 C.R.R. 209, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 32 C.R.R. 269; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 62 C.R.(3d) 349; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Dewald, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 68; 192 N.R. 237; 89 O.A.C. 146; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 382, refd to. [para. 4].

Herman v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 729; 23 N.R. 235; 91 D.L.R.(3d) 3, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Leslie et al. (1989), 79 Sask.R. 306 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Director of Support and Custody Orders Enforcement (Ont.) v. Nabi (1989), 71 O.R.(2d) 141 (U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 4].

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. 4].

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. 4].

Comte, Le v. British Columbia, [1990] B.C.J. No. 870, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Lillico (1994), 92 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Turcotte (1987), 60 Sask.R. 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Kokesch (1991), 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Ironeagle (1989), 76 Sask.R. 253; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 339 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

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; 4 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 4].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 495, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Joubert (1992), 69 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

B.X. Development Ltd. v. R. (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 14 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Morra (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

B. v. R. (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 235 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Prousky & Biback (1986), 30 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Alder v. R. (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 234 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

R. v. Cox and Railton (1884), 14 Q.B.D. 153, refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 488.1 [para. 12].

Counsel:

G. Scott Ellsworth, for the Crown;

Morris Manning, Q.C., for the de­fence.

This voir dire motion was heard on June 19, 20, 23 and 24, 1997, before Landry, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judi­cial District of Moncton, who delivered the following judg­ment on August 18, 1997.