Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2003) 250 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

JudgeBlanchard, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 09, 2003
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2003), 250 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

Ribic v. Can. (A.G.) (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.011

Nicholas Ribic (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada and The Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

(DES-3-02; 2003 FCT 10)

Indexed As: Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Blanchard, J.

January 9, 2003.

Summary:

Ribic, a Canadian citizen, was defending charges resulting from a hostage taking incident in Bosnia while he was a member of the Serb Forces. Ribic sought an order under s. 38.04(2)(c) of the Canada Evidence Act authorizing two serving members of the Canadian Forces to testify at his criminal trial without restriction. He applied for an order pursuant to s. 38.06(1) or s. 38.06(2) that the entirety of the information at issue be disclosed. The Attorney General of Canada objected to a blanket authorization and moved for directions under s. 38.04(5) and the Federal Court Rules.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, ordered that the two witnesses be examined by counsel for the Attorney General and that the examination be conducted based on a list of questions to be submitted by Ribic. The examination resulted in 555 pages of transcript. The Attorney General expurgated portions of the transcript because of the potential injury to national defence, national security or international relations. The Attorney General applied for confirmation of its decision. The parties agreed that the court should examine the expurgated portions of the transcript.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application to have the two witnesses testify without restriction at the trial and prohibited them from testifying respecting the evidence considered in this proceeding. The court determined what information could be disclosed and ordered that the expurgated version of the transcript be admitted into evidence at the criminal trial as if the witnesses had testified before the trial judge under oath. The court varied a prior protective order to provide for the nondisclosure of the defence information until the conclusion of Ribic's trial and the expiry of all applicable appeal periods.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets (incl. national security) - State or public documents - Ribic sought an order under s. 38.04(2)(c) of the Canada Evidence Act authorizing two serving members of the Canadian Forces to testify at his criminal trial respecting a hostage taking incident in Bosnia - Ribic sought to have the entirety of the information at issue disclosed pursuant to s. 38.06(1) or 38.06(2) - Pursuant to directions from the court, the two witnesses were examined by counsel for the Attorney General using a list of questions submitted by Ribic - The Attorney General expurgated portions of the transcript because of the potential injury to national defence, national security or international relations and applied for confirmation of its decision - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, noted that the parties had agreed that the court should examine the expurgated portions thereby relieving it from having to deal with that issue - The court agreed that a designated judge had a broad discretion to exercise in deciding whether to look at the material withheld prior to entering into the process of balancing the competing interest - See paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets (incl. national security) - State or public documents - Ribic sought an order under s. 38.04(2)(c) of the Canada Evidence Act authorizing two serving members of the Canadian Forces to testify at his criminal trial respecting a hostage taking incident in Bosnia - Ribic sought to have the entirety of the information at issued disclosed pursuant to s. 38.06(1) or s. 38.06(2) - Pursuant to court directions, the two witnesses were examined by counsel for the Attorney General using a list of questions submitted by Ribic - The Attorney General expurgated portions of the transcript because of the potential injury to national defence, national security or international relations and sought confirmation of its decision - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in determining what information was to be disclosed, stated that s. 38.06(2) did not specify the test or the factors to be considered in weighing the competing interests nor did the Act contemplate an obvious imbalance between the public interest in national security and in the administration of justice - The relevant factors might vary from case to case - In a case involving serious criminal charges, whether the information would probably establish a fact crucial to the defence was an important factor - Other factors warranting consideration included: the nature of the interest sought to be protected; the admissibility and usefulness of the information; its probative value to an issue at trial; whether there were other reasonable ways of obtaining the information; whether the disclosures sought amounted to a fishing expedition; and the seriousness of the charges or issues involved - Each application was to be dealt with on its own merits - See paragraphs 22 and 23.

Cases Noticed:

Goguen and Albert v. Gibson, [1983] 1 F.C. 822 (F.C.T.D.), affd. [1983] 2 F.C. 463; 50 N.R. 286 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Evans (K.F.) Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (1996), 106 F.T.R. 210 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Ribic v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 198; 2002 FCT 290, 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, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Rose (J.) (1998), 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Jose Pereira E. Hijos, S.A. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 299 N.R. 154; 2002 FCA 470, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 38.06(2) [para. 11].

Counsel:

D'Arcy Depoe and Heather Perkins-McVey, for the applicant;

Alain Préfontaine, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Beresh Depoe Cunningham, Edmonton, Alberta and Heather Perkins-McVey, Ottawa, Ontario, for Nicholas Ribic;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Blanchard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, heard this matter at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17, 2003, and delivered the following reasons for order on January 9, 2003.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Almalki et al., 2010 FC 1106
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 6, 2010
    ...(Attorney General) et al. (2004), 255 F.T.R. 173 ; 2004 FC 1052 , refd to. [para. 40]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10 , affd. [2005] 1 F.C.R. 33 ; 320 N.R. 275 ; 2003 FCA 246 , appld. [para. 42]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja, [20......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books National Security Law. Second Edition Accountability
    • August 5, 2021
    ...Rex v Carrier, 1951 CanLII 387 (QC CQ).......................................................... 252 Ribic v Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 250 FTR 161, [2003] FCJ No 1965, 2003 FCT 10 ......................................................................... 475 Roncarelli v Duplessis, [......
  • Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General), (2008) 329 F.T.R. 80 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 29, 2008
    ...[para. 11]. R. et al. v. Larosa (N.) (2002), 163 O.A.C. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10, affd. (2003), 320 N.R. 275; 2003 FCA 246, refd to. [para. Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja (2007), 312 F.T.R. 217; 2007......
  • Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 807
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 2008
    ...46]. D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 187 O.A.C. 26; 71 O.R.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10, affd. (2003), 320 N.R. 275; 2003 FCA 246, refd to. [para. 47]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja (2007), 312 F.T.R. 217; 20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Almalki et al., 2010 FC 1106
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 6, 2010
    ...(Attorney General) et al. (2004), 255 F.T.R. 173 ; 2004 FC 1052 , refd to. [para. 40]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10 , affd. [2005] 1 F.C.R. 33 ; 320 N.R. 275 ; 2003 FCA 246 , appld. [para. 42]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja, [20......
  • Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General), (2008) 329 F.T.R. 80 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 29, 2008
    ...[para. 11]. R. et al. v. Larosa (N.) (2002), 163 O.A.C. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10, affd. (2003), 320 N.R. 275; 2003 FCA 246, refd to. [para. Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja (2007), 312 F.T.R. 217; 2007......
  • Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 807
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 2008
    ...46]. D.P. v. Wagg (2004), 187 O.A.C. 26; 71 O.R.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10, affd. (2003), 320 N.R. 275; 2003 FCA 246, refd to. [para. 47]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja (2007), 312 F.T.R. 217; 20......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja, (2007) 312 F.T.R. 217 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 30, 2007
    ...Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60 ; 51 N.R. 81 , refd to. [para. 82]. Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 250 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 10 , refd to. [para. 83]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Kempo (2004), 294 F.T.R. 1 ; 2004 FC 1678 , refd to. [para. 84]. Be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books National Security Law. Second Edition Accountability
    • August 5, 2021
    ...Rex v Carrier, 1951 CanLII 387 (QC CQ).......................................................... 252 Ribic v Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 250 FTR 161, [2003] FCJ No 1965, 2003 FCT 10 ......................................................................... 475 Roncarelli v Duplessis, [......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT