R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2002) 307 A.R. 201 (QB)

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 307 A.R. 201 (QB);2002 ABQB 19

R. v. Trang (D.) (2002), 307 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. FE.099

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. De Trang, Tuan Quoc Trang, Binh Quoc Trang, Cuong Quoc Trang, Thao Mai Dao, Phuc Canh Truong, Vi Quoc Tang, Joseph Vincent Kochan (applicants)

(Action No. 0003 2182 C5; 2002 ABQB 19)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

January 31, 2002.

Summary:

The accused were charged with offences relating to conspiracy to traffic, participating in a criminal organization and possession of proceeds of crime. They sought disclosure of certain material. The Crown advanced, inter alia, various forms of privilege as a basis for non-disclosure.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly.

Civil Rights - Topic 1441

Security of the person - Right to privacy - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the effect of third party privacy rights on the Crown's disclosure duty - The court stated, inter alia, that individuals had a constitutional right to privacy - A right of privacy might constitute a privilege, and even where it did not, might justify non-disclosure - Where the privilege or privacy right was established, it could be waived where the information was voluntarily provided to the Crown or the police by the protected individual - Where established and the information otherwise came into the possession of the Crown or the police, the privilege or privacy right might be trumped if it unduly limited the accused's right to make full answer and defence - Where the information was clearly relevant and important to the accused's ability to raise a defence, it had to be disclosed - Otherwise, the information might be subject to privilege or a right of privacy justifying non-disclosure - See paragraphs 98 to 110.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that investigative techniques, ongoing investigation and safety of individuals were well recognized common law privileges - The court categorized them as "qualified privileges" to distinguish them from communication based privilege - In accordance with the jurisprudence, these privileges were subject to review and balancing by the court of the public interest served by the privilege against the importance of the information to an accused's right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 48 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that police internal communications had to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, to determine if they were privileged under the Wigmore test; if so, the confidential privilege accorded to them was subject to review by the court for the purpose of balancing the confidentiality against the importance of the information to an accused's right to make full answer and defence - Even where police internal communications did not meet the Wigmore test, the content of the documents in question might merit public interest immunity if the injuries which would be caused by a possible denial of justice as a result of non-disclosure did not outweigh the injury to the public as a result of revelation of government documents which were never intended to be made public - See paragraphs 56 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1441 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1441 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The Crown argued that "police intelligence" was protected by public interest privilege - Police intelligence was information gathered in connection with an investigation, a potential investigation or general public security relating to, inter alia, organized crime and terrorism - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "as a matter of public policy, having regard to the purpose and role law enforcement is intended to provide to society, it is in the public interest that sensitive intelligence information in the possession of the police be protected. ... However, I am not persuaded that in the context of disclosure, a new 'police intelligence' privilege should be recognized. Rather, if protection is to be afforded, it must fall within a more specific category. For example, the items of information contained in such databases, where relevant, may be subject to privilege on a number of grounds such as investigative technique, ongoing investigation, safety of individuals, or internal communications." - See paragraphs 60 to 63.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1441 and first and second Criminal Law - Topic 128 ].

Evidence - Topic 4107.1

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Public interest privilege - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 128 and first Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Evidence - Topic 4161

Witnesses - Privilege - Communications - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set out the following distinction between class communication privilege and case-by-case communication privilege: "Class: prima facie presumption of inadmissibility; compelling policy reasons must exist, and the relationship must be inextricably linked with the justice system; protection is accorded to all who fall within the class; the privilege is as close to absolute as possible, will only yield to production in certain clearly defined circumstances such as innocence at stake, and does not involve a balancing of interests on a case-by-case basis. Case: prima facie presumption of admissibility; to establish inadmissibility the communication must first meet Wigmore or similar test; if so, confidentiality must be balanced against the right of an accused to make full answer and defence on a case-by-case basis." - See paragraph 32.

Evidence - Topic 4161

Witnesses - Privilege - Communications - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the common law communication privilege recognized two categories of privilege: class and case-by-case and two categories of class communication privilege: solicitor-client and informer - See paragraph 33.

Evidence - Topic 4236

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - When privilege may be invoked - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that solicitor-client privilege extended to legal advice given to one member of a police force, which was shared by that member with other members of the same force or with members of another force where both forces are participants in a joint investigation and prosecution - See paragraphs 111 to 113.

Evidence - Topic 4238

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Documents prepared in contemplation of litigation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set out general principles with respect to litigation privilege in the civil context - See paragraph 65.

Evidence - Topic 4238.1

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Documents - Lawyer's work product - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "'Work product' or 'litigation' privilege produced by or on behalf of a lawyer either in private practice or as Crown counsel has a sound foundation in the criminal jurisprudence ... Further, for the policy reasons articulated in the jurisprudence, ... I conclude that work product produced by counsel, whether in private practice, in-house, or retained by the Crown, is a subset of solicitor-client privilege and in criminal law falls within its protection." - Further, Crown work product/litigation privilege extended to work produced by the police for the purpose of a criminal trial - See paragraphs 64 to 97.

Evidence - Topic 4242.1

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Communications between Crown prosecutors and investigators - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that communications between police and Crown counsel which were not of a solicitor-client nature and communications between police and agencies such as Correctional Services Canada might be found to be privileged under the Wigmore test respecting confidential communications - See paragraph 58.

Evidence - Topic 4242.1

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Communications between Crown prosecutors and investigators - [See Evidence - Topic 4236 ].

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, refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 6, 11].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [paras. 6, 11].

R. v. Meuckon (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 49].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Sander (1994), 44 B.C.A.C. 200; 71 W.A.C. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 31].

R. v. Little (R.J.) (2001), 285 A.R. 85 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Smith (R.) (1994), 146 Sask.R. 202 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al. (1996), 137 Sask.R. 312; 107 W.A.C. 312; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 550 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Guess (G.) (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 51; 235 W.A.C. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.) (2001), 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 6, 19, 49].

Reference re Milgaard (Can.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 866; 135 N.R. 80; 100 Sask.R. 183; 18 W.A.C. 183, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Castro (J.F.) et al. (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 97; 256 W.A.C. 97; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 255 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 26].

R. v. Creswell (F.A.) (2000), 146 B.C.A.C. 7; 239 W.A.C. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 26].

R. v. Tonner (R.A.) (2001), 282 A.R. 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 6, 26].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81, consd. [paras. 6, 37].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hunter (1987), 19 O.A.C. 131; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

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. 6].

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, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Snider, [1954] S.C.R. 479, refd to. [paras. 6, 37].

R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [paras. 6, 29].

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, refd to. [paras. 6, 49].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, refd to. [paras. 6, 59].

R. v. Richards (M.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 215; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 49].

R. v. Thomas (W.) and Morris (R.) (1998), 59 O.T.C. 81; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 178 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Al-Madhagi, [2001] O.J. No. 652 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kelly v. Canada (1994), 79 F.T.R. 186 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

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. 6].

R. v. Boomer (J.B.) (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 49; 563 A.P.R. 49 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Thurston (D.T.) et al., [2000] B.C.J. No. 1919 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hazelwood (A.) et al., [2000] O.T.C. Uned. B81 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 6, 80].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 6, 11].

R. v. Mah (J.) (2001), 288 A.R. 249 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 7, 11].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Lee and Fishman (1992), 127 A.R. 236; 20 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 7, 28].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 7].

Somerville Belkin Industries Ltd. v. Brocklesby Transport et al. (1985), 5 C.P.C.(2d) 239 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. et al. (1992), 135 A.R. 21; 33 W.A.C. 21; 10 C.P.C.(3d) 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. (1998), 115 O.A.C. 355 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 79].

R. v. Johal, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1271 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 7, 75].

R. v. Giroux (L.), [2001] O.T.C. 982 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. DeRose (A.S.) et al. (2000), 268 A.R. 154; 81 Alta. L.R.(3d) 359 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 7, 81].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2001), 300 A.R. 89 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America v. Nobles (1975), 422 U.S. 225 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Pena, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2822 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [1995] 2 F.C. 762; 184 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada - see Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

R. v. German and Medicine Hat Greenhouses Ltd. (1978), 13 A.R. 232; 45 C.C.C.(2d) 27 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1978), 26 N.R. 164; 15 A.R. 179 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224, refd to. [paras. 7, 56].

Slavutych v. Baker - see Slavutych v. University of Alberta.

Pavey and Pavey v. Furrie, Craig, Howard and Calgary Police Commission (1979), 22 A.R. 615 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Fehr (1983), 51 A.R. 144; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (Q.B.), affd. (1984), 15 C.C.C.(3d) 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ottawa-Carlton (Regional Municipality) v. Consumers' Gas Co. et al. (1990), 41 O.A.C. 65; 74 O.R.(2d) 637 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1997), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 72; 532 A.P.R. 72 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 7, 76].

R. v. Stewart (R.) (1997), 24 O.T.C. 266 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al., [1997] O.T.C. 1 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 7, 73].

R. v. Newsom (W.L.) (1996), 197 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. MacPherson (1991), 105 N.S.R.(2d) 123; 284 A.P.R. 123 (T.D.), affd. (1991), 109 N.S.R.(2d) 303; 297 A.P.R. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 85].

R. v. Caccamo, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 786; 4 N.R. 133, refd to. [paras. 8, 85].

R. v. Petersen (S.H.) (1997), 155 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 8, 85].

R. v. S.E.S. et al. (1992), 100 Sask.R. 110; 18 W.A.C. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 85].

R. v. Jack (B.G.) (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 168; 10 W.A.C. 168; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 67 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 85].

R. v. O'Grady (G.L.) (1995), 64 B.C.A.C. 111; 105 W.A.C. 111 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 85].

R. v. Charron (A.) (1996), 141 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 170; 443 A.P.R. 170 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [paras. 8, 89].

Smerchanski v. Lewis (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 328 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 38].

Schafer (R.C.) et al. v. R. (1992), 106 Sask.R. 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 8, 40].

Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2), [1974] A.C. 405 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Waterford v. Australia (1987), 163 C.L.R. 54 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 74].

Jordan et al. v. United States Department of Justice (1978), 591 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

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; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 8].

Duncan et al. v. Cammell, Laird & Co., [1942] A.C. 624 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 8, 36].

Conway v. Rimmer et al., [1968] A.C. 910 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 8, 36].

Gagnon v. Québec (Commission des valeurs mobilières), [1965] S.C.R. 73, refd to. [paras. 8, 37].

General Accident Assurance Co. et al. v. Chrusz et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 45 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v. Jones Power Co. et al. (2000), 188 N.S.R.(2d) 173; 587 A.P.R. 173 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Edgar v. Auld et al. (2000), 225 N.B.R.(2d) 71; 578 A.P.R. 71; 43 C.P.C.(4th) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Lamey v. Rice (2000), 227 N.B.R.(2d) 295; 583 A.P.R. 295; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 486 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Morrissey v. Morrissey et al. (2000), 196 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 262; 589 A.P.R. 262; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 94 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Moseley v. Spray Lakes Sawmills (1980) Ltd. et al. (1996), 184 A.R. 101; 122 W.A.C. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Hill v. Board of Education of Arcola School Division No. 72 (1999), 180 Sask.R. 256; 205 W.A.C. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Gower v. Tolko Manitoba Inc. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 20; 238 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64].

Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (No. 3), [1980] 3 All. E.R. 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

United States of America v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1980), 642 F.2d 1285 (S.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, affing. (1998), 120 B.C.A.C. 145; 196 W.A.C. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Kranz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 13 B.C.T.C. 134 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cory, Peter, Report of the Inquiry into the Wrongful Conviction of Thomas Sophonow (2001), generally [para. 6].

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

Manes, R.D., More on Solicitor/Client Privilege: The Tug of War Continues (1999), 78 Can. Bar Rev. 534, generally [paras. 8, 64].

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

Nova Scotia, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution Report, Findings and Recommendations (1989), vol. 1 [para. 6].

Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (Martin Committee Report) (1993), generally [paras. 7, 8, 74]; Recommendation 15 [paras. 70, 78].

Sharpe, R.J., Claiming Privilege in the Discovery Process, Law in Transition: Evidence, Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures (1984), generally [paras. 8, 64].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), generally [para. 8]; pp. 15.1 [para. 6]; 653 [para. 64].

Watson, G.D., and Au., F., Solicitor-Client Privilege and Litigation Privilege in Civil Litigation (1998), 77 Can. Bar Rev. 315, generally [paras. 8, 64].

Wilson, J.D., Privilege in Experts' Working Papers (1997), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 346, generally [paras. 8, 64].

Counsel:

J. James, for the applicants;

D. Tomljanovic, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 21, 2002, by Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 31, 2002.