Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2013) 449 N.R. 28 (FCA)

• Judge: Evans, Stratas and Mainville, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: Tuesday April 16, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 449 N.R. 28 (FCA);2013 FCA 199;[2015] 1 FCR 81;364 DLR (4th) 112;449 NR 28;[2013] FCJ No 996 (QL)

Slansky v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 449 N.R. 28 (FCA)

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: [2013] N.R. TBEd. SE.007

Paul Slansky (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen (respondents) and Canadian Judicial Council (intervener)

(A-497-11; 2013 FCA 199; 2013 CAF 199)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Evans, Stratas and Mainville, JJ.A.

September 9, 2013.

Summary:

Following a murder trial, counsel for the defence (Slansky) filed a complaint about the trial judge with the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). The CJC hired outside counsel (Friedland) to conduct inquiries and prepare a report respecting the complaint. The CJC, relying on the Friedland report, determined that the complaint did not warrant further consideration as it did not establish judicial misconduct. Slansky applied for judicial review and sought extensive production from the CJC. The CJC refused to produce the Friedland report, claiming solicitor-client privilege. Slansky moved to have his judicial review application converted to an action or, alternatively, for an order requiring the CJC to produce the Friedland report in its entirety.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a decision reported (2011), 388 F.T.R. 217, granted the motion in part. The court ordered that a redacted version of the report be produced. Only the portions of the report that constituted legal advice were protected by solicitor-client privilege and should be redacted from the copy produced and filed with the court. The Prothonotary did not deal with the conversion issue. A motion was filed pursuant to rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules to set aside the Prothonotary's decision.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported (2011), 402 F.T.R. 230, granted the motion. The entire report was protected by both legal advice and public interest privilege. The court, however, ordered the CJC to disclose the 6,000 pages of trial transcript examined by Friedland, as well as other publicly available materials that he had considered in preparing his report. Slansky failed to establish that conversion of the application to an action was appropriate. Slansky appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Stratas, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal, but varied the Federal Court's order by requiring the CJC to disclose pages 31-32 of the Report as part of its tribunal record because they were not relevant to Friedland's investigation of Slansky's complaint against the judge. The majority agreed that the report was subject to both legal advice and public interest privilege. Further, the judge did not err in declining to convert the application to an action.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5.5

General principles - Unwritten constitutional principles - Judicial independence - [See first Evidence - Topic 4107.1].

Courts - Topic 306

Judges - Independence of judiciary - [See first Evidence - Topic 4107.1].

Courts - Topic 451.2

Judges - Discipline - Canadian Judicial Council - Disclosure obligations - [See both Evidence - Topic 4107.1 and second Practice - Topic 4577].

Evidence - Topic 4107.1

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Public interest privilege - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "It is the prerogative and responsibility of the Canadian Judicial Council to decide in which circumstances and to what extent it is in the public interest not to disclose information obtained in the course of an investigation into the conduct of a judge. This public interest privilege flows in part from the constitutional principle of judicial independence. A large degree of deference is owed to the Council on this matter. However, in the context of a judicial proceeding where the issue may arise, it is the role of the court to balance the harm to judicial independence and the Council's processes that may result from a disclosure against the prejudice to the administration of justice that may result from non-disclosure" - See paragraph 124 - The court elaborated on this statement - See paragraphs 130 to 155.

Evidence - Topic 4107.1

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Public interest privilege - The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) hired outside counsel (Professor Friedland) to conduct inquiries and prepare a report respecting Slansky's complaint against a judge - Relying on the report, the CJC determined that the complaint did not warrant further consideration - Slansky sought production of the Friedland report, but the CJC refused, asserting public interest privilege - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the report was subject to public interest privilege - See paragraphs 9 and 156 to 168.

Practice - Topic 2493

Writ of summons, endorsements, originating summons and originating notices - Originating notices (judicial review) - Conversion to or from formal action - [See Practice - Topic 3082].

Practice - Topic 3082

Applications and motions - Applications - Disposition - Application to proceed as action - The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) hired counsel (Friedland) to conduct inquiries and prepare a report respecting a complaint against a judge by Slansky - The CJC determined that the complaint did not warrant further consideration - Slansky applied for judicial review and sought to have his application converted to an action - He claimed that the facts could not be established or weighed by affidavit evidence and that there were evidentiary gaps, inconsistencies and factual issues which could not be weighed by affidavit evidence - The Federal Court held that Slansky's bald assertion regarding the problem with the affidavit evidence, without further explanation, was insufficient to justify conversion - Slansky failed to establish that this case met the "clearest of circumstances" criteria - Slansky appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 54 to 63 and 117.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attorney-client communications (legal advice privilege) - The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the elements of legal advice privilege - See paragraphs 74 to 79.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attorney-client communications (legal advice privilege) - The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) hired outside counsel (Professor Friedland) to conduct inquiries and prepare a report respecting Slansky's complaint against a judge - Relying on the report, the CJC determined that the complaint did not warrant further consideration - Slansky sought production of the Friedland report, but the CJC refused, asserting legal advice privilege - The Federal Court of Appeal held that despite Friedland's engagement letter's description of counsel's role as that of a gatherer and finder of the facts, it could be inferred from the stated nature of the allegations into which Friedland was to inquire that his role involved legal and factual analyses requiring a lawyer's skills and knowledge - Thus, when engaged to assist the CJC in deciding how to proceed with the complaint, Professor Friedland was engaged in his capacity as a lawyer - Therefore, the report was subject to legal advice privilege - See paragraphs 9, 64 to 109 and 118.

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 44].

Payne v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (2000), 136 O.A.C. 357; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 61, 314].

Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574; 376 N.R. 327; 2008 SCC 44, refd to. [paras. 66, 241].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [paras. 67, 223].

Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2004] UKHL 48; 329 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 67].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [paras. 68, 222].

General Accident Assurance Co. et al. v. Chrusz et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 241; 45 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 69, 236].

College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 W.W.R. 279; 176 B.C.A.C. 61; 290 W.A.C. 61; 9 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 BCCA 665, refd to. [paras. 69, 187].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [paras. 74, 186].

Balabel v. Air India, [1988] Ch. 317 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 77, 232].

Blood Tribe et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 487 A.R. 71; 495 W.A.C. 71; 317 D.L.R.(4th) 634; 2010 ABCA 112, refd to. [paras. 77, 232].

Gower v. Tolko Manitoba Inc. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 20; 238 W.A.C. 20; 196 D.L.R.(4th) 716; 2001 MBCA 11, refd to. [paras. 78, 191].

Wilson v. Favelle, [1994] B.C.T.C. Uned. 826; 26 C.P.C.(3d) 273 (S.C. Master), refd to. [paras. 86, 230].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 132].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 133].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 133].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commission (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 134, 299].

MacKeigan v. Hickman - see MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commission (Marshall Inquiry).

Garnett v. Ferrand (1827), 6 B. & C. 611, refd to. [para. 135].

Rivard v. Morier and Boily, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716; 64 N.R. 46, refd to. [para. 135].

Sirros v. Moore, [1975] 1 Q.B. 118, refd to. [para. 135].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Quèbec (Procureur général) et autres.

Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Therrien, J., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3; 270 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 141].

Therrien, Re - see Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Therrien, J.

Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 3 F.C. 3; 300 N.R. 1; 2003 FCA 55, affing. (2001), 212 F.T.R. 246; 2001 FCT 1247, refd to. [para. 149].

Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 432 F.T.R. 56; 2013 FC 451, refd to. [para. 165].

Jacko v. McLellan (2008), 247 O.A.C. 318; 306 D.L.R.(4th) 126 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 165].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 186].

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. 186].

Cunningham v. Lilles et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 189].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 194].

Thompson v. Minister of National Revenue (2013), 448 N.R. 339; 2013 FCA 197, refd to. [para. 223].

Ontario Securities Commission v. Greymac Credit Corp. (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 328 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Joubert (R.M.) (1992), 7 B.C.A.C. 31; 15 W.A.C. 31; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 224].

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 249].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 249].

Bone et al. v. Person et al. (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 85; 218 W.A.C. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 261].

Ranger v. Penterman (2011), 278 O.A.C. 390; 2011 ONCA 412, refd to. [para. 261].

Guelph (City) v. Super Blue Box Recycling Corp., [2004] O.T.C. 961 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 261].

Information Commissioner of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2013), 444 N.R. 268; 2013 FCA 104, refd to. [para. 266].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 267].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 267].

Southern Railway of British Columbia Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1991] B.C.T.C. Uned. 128; [1991] 1 C.T.C. 432 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 269].

PSC Industrial Services Canada Inc. et al. v. Thunder Bay (City) et al., [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 262 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 269].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. B.D.S. et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 664; 2002 BCSC 664, refd to. [para. 269].

1225145 Ontario Inc. v. Kelly, [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 620 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 269].

Access Information Agency Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] N.R. Uned. 154; 2007 FCA 224, refd to. [para. 275].

1185740 Ontario Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (1999), 247 N.R. 287 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 275].

Stonechild, Re (2007), 304 Sask.R. 1; 413 W.A.C. 1; 284 D.L.R.(4th) 268; 2007 SKCA 74, refd to. [para. 275].

Hartwig v. Saskatchewan (Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Stonechild, Commissioner) - see Stonechild, Re.

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522; 287 N.R. 203; 2002 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 279].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 279].

Minister of National Revenue v. Derakhshani (2009), 400 N.R. 311; 2009 FCA 190, refd to. [para. 279].

Minister of National Revenue v. RBC Life Insurance Co. (2013), 443 N.R. 378; 2013 FCA 50, refd to. [para. 279].

Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al. v. British Columbia, [2002] B.C.T.C. 1509; 8 B.C.L.R.(4th) 281; 2002 BCSC 1509, refd to. [para. 281].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 284].

Sankey v. Whitlam (1978), 21 A.L.R. 505 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 286].

Burmah Oil Co. v. Bank of England, [1979] 3 All E.R. 700 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 286].

Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] A.C. 910 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 294].

Glasgow Corp. v. Central Land Board, [1956] S.C. (H.L.) 1, refd to. [para. 294].

Rogers v. Home Secretary, [1973] A.C. 388 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 294].

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. 302].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 314].

Woodward Estate v. British Columbia (Minister of Finance), [1973] S.C.R. 120, refd to. [para. 314].

Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 314].

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry; Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General), Cofsky and Alberta (Attorney General), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 314].

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; 434 N.R. 257; 325 B.C.A.C. 1; 553 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 314].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 314].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 314].

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 314].

Hy and Zel's Inc. - see Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General).

Harris et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4 F.C. 37; 256 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 314].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 314].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221; 265 N.R. 2; 140 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 314].

Baker v. Carr (1962), 369 U.S. 186, refd to. [para. 327].

Tzaban v. Minister of Religious Affairs, 40(4) P.D. 141, refd to. [para. 328].

Statutes Noticed:

Judges Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1, sect. 60(1), sect. 60(2)(c) [para. 25]; sect. 62 [para. 26]; sect. 63(2), sect. 63(5), sect. 63(6) [para. 27]; sect. 65(1), sect. 65(2)(b) [para. 28]; sect. 71 [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barak, A., The Judge in a Democracy (2006), pp. 111 to 112 [para. 331]; 209 [para. 328].

Binnie, Ian, Judicial Independence in Canada, in World Conference on Constitutional Justice (2nd Congress, 2011), generally [para. 329].

Brody, David C., The Use of Judicial Performance Evaluation to Enhance Judicial Accountability, Judicial Independence and Public Trust (2008), 86 Denv. L.R. 115, pp. 121 to 126 [para. 326].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), pp. 927, 928, 957 [para. 256].

Campbell, Enid, and Lee, H.P., The Australian Judiciary (2001), pp. 6 to 7 [para. 327].

Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Principles for Judges (1998), generally [para. 330].

Canadian Judicial Council, Procedures for Dealing With Complaints Made to the Canadian Judicial Council about Federally Appointed Judges (2002), sect. 1 [para. 33]; sect. 3.2 [para. 31]; sect. 5.1(c) [para. 33]; sect. 7.1, sect. 7.2 [para. 34].

Ciparick, Carmen Beauchamp, and King, Bradley T., Judicial Independence: Is It Impaired or Bolstered by Judicial Accountability? (2010), 84 St. John's L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 326].

Cross and Tapper on Evidence (11th Ed. 2007), p. 472 [para. 256].

Dodeck, Adam M., Reconceiving Solicitor-Client Privilege (2009), 35 Queen's L.R. 493, pp. 514 to 516 [para. 71].

Friedland, Martin Lawrence, A Place Apart: Judicial Independence and Accountability in Canada (1995), generally [para. 14].

Geyh, Charles Gardner, Rescuing Judicial Accountability from the Realm of Political Rhetoric (2006), 56 Case Western Reserve L.R. 911, pp. 922 to 935 [para. 299].

Hubbard, Robert W., Magotiaux, Susan, and Duncan, Suzanne M., The Law of Privilege in Canada (Looseleaf), ss. 3.10, 3.50 [para. 130].

Keane, Adriane, Griffiths, James, and McKeown, Paul, The Modern Law of Evidence (8th Ed. 2010), p. 607 [para. 250].

McLachlin, Beverley, Courts, Transparency and Public Confidence (2003), 8 Deakin L.R. 1, generally [para. 329].

Olowofeyeku, Abimbola A., The Crumbling Citadel: Absolute Judicial Immunity De-Rationalized (1990), 10 Legal Stud. 271, generally [para. 326].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (6th Ed. 2011), p. 220 [para. 261].

Phipson on Evidence (17th Ed. 2010), p. 645 [para. 256].

Strassfeld, Robert N., "Atrocious Judges" and "Odious" Courts Revisited (2006), 56 Case Western Reserve L.R. 899, generally [para. 326].

Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, para. 2292 [para. 186].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the appellant;

James Gorham, for the respondent;

Paul Cavalluzzo and Adrienne Telford, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Rocco Galati Law Firm, Professional Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on April 16, 2013, by Evans, Stratas and Mainville, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on September 9, 2013, and the following opinions were filed:

Evans, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 116;

Mainville, J.A., concurring - see paragraphs 117 to 168;

Stratas, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 169 to 340.