« Privilège d'intérêt public » : différence entre les versions

{{Currency2|December|2022}}{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrivilege}}

{{CanLIIRP|Basi|26mxq|2009 SCC 52 (CanLII)|[2009] 3 SCR 389}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{atL|26mxq|23}}<br>

Renseignements d’intérêt public

{{removed|(4.1), (5), (6), (6.1), (7), (8) and (9)}}

L.R. (1985), ch. C-5, art. 372001, ch. 41, art. 43 et 1402002, ch. 8, art. 1832013, ch. 9, art. 17(A)

L'expression « empiéterait sur » fait référence aux « circonstances dans lesquelles ... le privilège est annulé ».<ref>

Pour établir l'empiétement, il n'est pas nécessaire de démontrer qu'il en résultera une « atteinte », mais seulement qu'il « pourrait en résulter ».<Ref>

{{supra1|MC}} at para 45 ("To establish the encroachment of a specified interest, it is not necessary that disclosure will necessarily endanger the specified interest, only that it might")<br>

{{removed|(1), (1.1), (2), (3), (4), (4.1), (5) and (6)}}

(6.1) The court may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the court, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base its decision on that evidence.

(8) A person who wishes to introduce into evidence material the disclosure of which is authorized under subsection (5) {{AnnSecE|37(5)}}, but who may not be able to do so by reason of the rules of admissibility that apply before the court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, may request from the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) {{AnnSecE|37(2)}} or (3) {{AnnSecE|37(3)}} an order permitting the introduction into evidence of the material in a form or subject to any conditions fixed by that court, as long as that form and those conditions comply with the order made under subsection (5) {{AnnSecE|37(5)}}.

(9) For the purpose of subsection (8) {{AnnSecE|37(8)}}, the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) {{AnnSecE|37(2)}} or (3) {{AnnSecE|37(3)}} shall consider all the factors that would be relevant for a determination of admissibility before the court, person or body.

R.S., {{LegHistoryCEA|1985, c. C-5}}, s. 37;

{{LegHistoryCEA|2001, c. 41}}, ss. 43, 140;  

{{LegHistoryCEA|2002, c. 8}}, s. 183;  

{{LegHistoryCEA|2013, c. 9}}, s. 17(E).

{{removed|(1), (1.1), (2), (3) and (4)}}

(4.1) Unless the court having jurisdiction to hear the application concludes that the disclosure of the information to which the objection was made under subsection (1) {{AnnSecE|37(1)}} would encroach upon a specified public interest, the court may authorize by order the disclosure of the information.

(5) If the court having jurisdiction to hear the application concludes that the disclosure of the information to which the objection was made under subsection (1) {{AnnSecE|37(1)}} would encroach upon a specified public interest, but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the specified public interest, the court may, by order, after considering both the public interest in disclosure and the form of and conditions to disclosure that are most likely to limit any encroachment upon the specified public interest resulting from disclosure, authorize the disclosure, subject to any conditions that the court considers appropriate, of all of the information, a part or summary of the information, or a written admission of facts relating to the information.

(6) If the court does not authorize disclosure under subsection (4.1) {{AnnSecE|37(4.1)}} or (5) {{AnnSecE|37(5)}}, the court shall, by order, prohibit disclosure of the information.

(7) An order of the court that authorizes disclosure does not take effect until the time provided or granted to appeal the order has expired or, if the order is appealed, the time provided or granted to appeal a judgment of an appeal court that confirms the order has expired and no further appeal from a judgment that confirms the order is available.

{{removed|(8) and (9)}}

R.S., {{LegHistoryCEA|1985, c. C-5}}, s. 37;

{{LegHistoryCEA|2001, c. 41}}, ss. 43, 140;  

{{LegHistoryCEA|2002, c. 8}}, s. 183;  

{{LegHistoryCEA|2013, c. 9}}, s. 17(E).

{{CanLIIRP|Meuckon|gcb2r|1990 CanLII 10991 (BC CA)|57 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perBCCA|Lambert JA}} ("In my opinion, Crown counsel can object to the disclosure of information under s. 37 by certifying orally that the information should not be disclosed on the ground of a public interest, which he must specify, in relation to police practices.")

# Si la Couronne ne fait ni l'un ni l'autre, le juge « peut autoriser la présentation de la preuve, mais le juge du procès peut imposer les garanties qui lui semblent appropriées ».

# « La Cour doit déterminer si le défendeur a établi une « preuve apparente » pour la divulgation des informations expurgées »

{{CanLIIR|MC|jstq5|2022 ONSC 6299 (CanLII)}} at para 34 (An application under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act is not a judicial review or an appeal of a decision")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Basi|26mxq|2009 SCC 52 (CanLII)|[2009] 3 SCR 389}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{atL|26mxq|50}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Pilotte|1dnrh|2002 CanLII 34599 (ON CA)|163 CCC (3d) 225}}{{atL|1dnrh|46}} ("Given the separate nature of a s. 37 inquiry, the Crown is correct in its contention that the proceeding did not form part of the trial.")

2001, ch. 41, art. 432015, ch. 3, art. 14(F)

* location of a surveillance or observation post (sometimes called "observation point privilege")<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Durette|1frv9|1994 CanLII 123 (SCC)|[1994] 1 SCR 469, 88 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} at 53<br>

L'une des principales considérations sur la nécessité de protéger certaines informations sur les techniques d'enquête dépend de « l'étendue des connaissances publiques sur la technique d'enquête ».<ref>

Ce privilège dans le contexte des documents ministériels est parfois appelé « privilège du Cabinet » ou « privilège ministériel ».<ref>

see {{CanLIIRx|Clarke|gg4j6|2015 NSSC 26 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Coady J}}{{atL|gg4j6|28}}<br>

L'article 38.01 de la Loi sur la preuve au Canada impose aux participants à une instance l'obligation d'aviser le procureur général du Canada de toute divulgation potentielle de renseignements jugés « sensibles » ou « potentiellement préjudiciables ». L'article 38.02 impose ensuite l'obligation de ne pas divulguer les renseignements. Il appartient alors au procureur général de décider ce qu'il doit divulguer.<ref>

L'article 39 protège les renseignements qui sont des « documents confidentiels du Conseil privé de la Reine pour le Canada ». Cela comprend les notes de service, les documents de travail, les ordres du jour, les délibérations, les documents utilisés pour formuler des décisions et des politiques (art. 39(2)) détenus par le Cabinet et les comités parlementaires (art. 39(3)).

* [[Privilège de l'informateur]]