R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2001) 300 A.R. 89 (QB)

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 28, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 300 A.R. 89 (QB);2001 ABQB 825

R. v. Trang (D.) (2001), 300 A.R. 89 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. OC.110

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

(Action No. 0003 2182 C5; 2001 ABQB 825)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

September 28, 2001.

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 the information vetted from a police officer's disclosed notes and reports.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that, with the exception of those items which the Crown now agreed to disclose, the non-disclosure of the vetted information was justified.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Evidence - Topic 4236 ].

Evidence - Topic 4107.1

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Public interest privilege - Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act permitted the Crown or other interested person to object to the disclosure of information on the grounds of "a specified public interest" - The accused argued that all applicable common law privileges, other than solicitor-client privilege, had been subsumed under s. 37 - Since the Crown had not relied upon s. 37 by way of certification in this case, the Crown could not rely upon common law privileges - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - "A specified public interest" provided for in s. 37 did not include solicitor-client privilege - Further, other common law privileges such as protecting witnesses against interference, investigative techniques, safety of persons and work product privilege could be raised under either the common law or s. 37 - See paragraph 16 and 33 to 35.

Evidence - Topic 4236

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - When privilege may be invoked - The accused sought disclosure of the information vetted from a police officer's disclosed notes and reports - They argued that solicitor/client privilege did not apply - They argued that, since R. v. Stinchcombe (S.C.C.), communications between a police officer and the Crown, whether dealing with issues involving the manner by which disclosure would be conducted and any difficulties arising therefrom or otherwise, would prima facie not originate in a confidence that they would not be disclosed - The police were acting as Crown agents in effecting the Crown's disclosure obligation - They were not seeking or receiving legal advice as "client" - The confidentiality claimed was not essential to the full and satisfactory relationship between the parties - Disclosure of the communications would not injuriously affect the Crown case - The Crown-police relationship was not one which should be sedulously fostered in the interest of the community to the prejudice of the accused's right to full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - See paragraphs 49 and 50.

Evidence - Topic 4254

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Waiver - General - The accused sought disclosure of the information vetted from a police officer's disclosed notes and reports - They argued that the Crown waived solicitor-client privilege in the vetted items, either voluntarily or by implication, because the officer, in examination and cross-examination respecting the disclosure issue, referred to the fact of discussions between the police and the Crown regarding disclosure - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - See paragraph 46.

Cases Noticed:

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. 3].

Slavutch v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 3].

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

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 3].

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

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Archer (1989), 94 A.R. 323; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 567 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Richards (M.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 215; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Lam (K.G.) (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 193; 235 W.A.C. 193; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 5].

Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495, refd to. [para. 5].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 5].

Kranz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 13 B.C.T.C. 134 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Babes (G.) et al. (2000), 146 C.C.C.(3d) 465 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal dismissed (2001), 271 N.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al., [1997] O.T.C. 1 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

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. [para. 5].

R. v. Court (1997), 36 O.R.(3d) 263 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

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, refd to. [para. 5].

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. [para. 5].

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. 5].

R. v. Lines, [1986] N.W.T.J. No. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Littlechild (1979), 19 A.R. 395; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 406 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mah (J.) et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 249 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Meuckon (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

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. [para. 5].

R. v. Petersen (S.H.) (1997), 155 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Church of Scientology (No. 3) (1984), 13 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

J.D.B., Re (1996), 46 C.R.(4th) 389 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Waterford v. Australia (1987), 163 C.L.R. 54 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Whitley v. United States of America, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; 197 N.R. 169; 91 O.A.C. 121, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Wijesinha (W.K.K.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 422; 186 N.R. 169; 85 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 5].

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. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 37 [para. 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

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

Martin, G. Arthur, Preliminary Hearings, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada, 1955, Evidence (1955), generally [para. 3].

Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (Martin Report) (1993), generally [paras. 5, 69].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), generally [para. 3].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, generally [para. 3]; p. 527 [para. 55].

Counsel:

B. Newton, for the applicants;

P.G. Barber and D. Tomljanovic, for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 13-15 and 18-22 and September 4 and 10, 2001, by Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 28, 2001.