Privilège d'intérêt public

Ang

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois December 2022. (Rev. # 9545)

• < Preuve
• < Privilège

Principes généraux

Toute information dont la divulgation peut être demandée peut être interdite en vertu de l'art. 37 de la Loi sur la preuve pour des « raisons d'intérêt public spécifié ». This can consist of a separate ground to prohibit the disclosure of informer or source information. However, most times it is dealt with by way of the common law.

Renseignements d’intérêt public Opposition à divulgation

37 (1) Sous réserve des articles 38 à 38.16, tout ministre fédéral ou tout fonctionnaire peut s’opposer à la divulgation de renseignements auprès d’un tribunal, d’un organisme ou d’une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements, en attestant verbalement ou par écrit devant eux que, pour des raisons d’intérêt public déterminées, ces renseignements ne devraient pas être divulgués.

Mesure intérimaire

(1.1) En cas d’opposition, le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne veille à ce que les renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, sauf en conformité avec la présente loi.

Opposition devant une cour supérieure

(2) Si l’opposition est portée devant une cour supérieure, celle-ci peut décider la question.

Opposition devant une autre instance

(3) Si l’opposition est portée devant un tribunal, un organisme ou une personne qui ne constituent pas une cour supérieure, la question peut être décidée, sur demande, par :

a) la Cour fédérale, dans les cas où l’organisme ou la personne investis du pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements sous le régime d’une loi fédérale ne constituent pas un tribunal régi par le droit d’une province;

b) la division ou le tribunal de première instance de la cour supérieure de la province dans le ressort de laquelle le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ont compétence, dans les autres cas.

Délai

(4) Le délai dans lequel la demande visée au paragraphe (3) peut être faite est de dix jours suivant l’opposition, mais le tribunal saisi peut modifier ce délai s’il l’estime indiqué dans les circonstances.

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

---

Public Interest

Objection to disclosure of information

37 (1) Subject to sections 38 to 38.16 [national security privilege], a Minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other official may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying orally or in writing to the court, person or body that the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of a specified public interest.

Obligation of court, person or body

(1.1) If an objection is made under subsection (1) [objection to disclosure of information], the court, person or body shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.

Objection made to superior court

(2) If an objection to the disclosure of information is made before a superior court, that court may determine the objection.

Objection not made to superior court

(3) If an objection to the disclosure of information is made before a court, person or body other than a superior court, the objection may be determined, on application, by

(a) the Federal Court, in the case of a person or body vested with power to compel production by or under an Act of Parliament if the person or body is not a court established under a law of a province; or

(b) the trial division or trial court of the superior court of the province within which the court, person or body exercises its jurisdiction, in any other case.

Limitation period

(4) An application under subsection (3) [objection not made to superior court] shall be made within 10 days after the objection is made or within any further or lesser time that the court having jurisdiction to hear the application considers appropriate in the circumstances.
[omis (4.1), (5), (6), (6.1), (7), (8) and (9)]

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 37; 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 140; 2002, c. 8, s. 183; 2013, c. 9, s. 17(E).

– CEA

---

Appeal of a Prohibition Order

Sections 37.1 and 37.2 permit a party to appeal any privilege prohibition orders made under s. 37.

"Would Encroach Upon"

The phrase "would encroach upon" refers to "circumstances where ...privilege is overridden." To establish encroachment, it is not necessary to show that "endagerment" will result, only that it "might."

The standard applied should be no different than that applied when considering a common law privilege.

Evidence

37
[omis (1), (1.1), (2), (3), (4), (4.1), (5) and (6)]

Evidence

(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.

[omis (7)]

Introduction into evidence

(8) A person who wishes to introduce into evidence material the disclosure of which is authorized under subsection (5) [disclosure order], 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) or (3) [objection not made to superior court] 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) [disclosure order].

Relevant factors

(9) For the purpose of subsection (8) [introduction into evidence], the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) or (3) [objection not made to superior court] shall consider all the factors that would be relevant for a determination of admissibility before the court, person or body.
R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 37; 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 140; 2002, c. 8, s. 183; 2013, c. 9, s. 17(E).

– CEA

---

Disclosure Order

37
[omis (1), (1.1), (2), (3) and (4)]

Disclosure order

(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) [objection to disclosure of information] would encroach upon a specified public interest, the court may authorize by order the disclosure of the information.

Disclosure order

(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) [objection to disclosure of information] 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.

Prohibition order

(6) If the court does not authorize disclosure under subsection (4.1) or (5) [disclosure order], the court shall, by order, prohibit disclosure of the information.
[omis (6.1)]

When determination takes effect

(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.

[omis (8) and (9)]

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 37; 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 140; 2002, c. 8, s. 183; 2013, c. 9, s. 17(E).

– CEA

---

Procedure

The Crown may invoke s. 37 privilege verbally in court to prevent disclosure of protected information. However, when raised the Crown must specify the public interest grounds.

There is no fixed process courts must follow upon the raising of a .s 37 issue. It is in their discretion to determine the proper process.

Where s. 37 protection is raised by the Crown the judge should do the following:

1. decide "whether the information might possibly affect the outcome of the trial".
2. If no affect is possible, the trial must continue;
3. If affect is possible, then they "must consider whether the upholding of the claim of privilege would" affect the right to full answer and defence;
4. If so, the Crown must be given the option to consider the alternatives of withdrawing the claim or entering a stay of proceedings;
5. If the Crown does not do either, the judge "may permit the introduction of the evidence though the trial judge may impose whatever safeguards seem appropriate."

Another recommended process was stated as:

1. "The Court must determine whether the Crown has established the specified public interest as claimed;"
2. "If that determination cannot be made based on the [record] alone, further submissions such as a secret affidavit and un-redacted documents must be filed in support of the privilege claimed, which will be dealt with in an ex parte manner;"
3. "The Court must determine whether the Respondent has established an “apparent case” for disclosure of the redacted information"
4. "Once an apparent case for disclosure has been established, the Court must consider reviewing the redacted information
5. "I the Court finds that the disclosure of the redacted information would encroach on the specified public interest, it must conduct a balancing of interests. The interests to be balanced are the public interest in disclosure and the specified public interest advanced by the Applicant. The Court may review the original form of the Redacted Information at this stage"
6. "Determine whether the redacted information should be disclosed."

The process should consider whether the "public interest in allowing the accused to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge can be overridden by the interest asserted by the Crown."

An application under s. 37 is not a judicial review or appeal from decision.

Accused Participation

A s. 37 hearing is entirely separate from the criminal trial proceedings that may relate to it. Accordingly, the accused and his counsel have no standing to participate in the hearing. A judge may take some measures to permit defence counsel to make submissions regarding what is occurring in their absence or may permit the appointment of a amicus curae.

It is only where the judge, upon review, found the evidence not to be privileged, is input from the defence necessary.

Disposition

If the court does not order disclosure of the record under s. 37(4.1) or (5), the court must prohibit disclosure under s. 37(6).

Suspension des procédures

L'article 37.3 permet à l'accusé de demander l'arrêt des procédures ou le rejet des accusations lorsque l'interdiction prononcée en vertu de l'art. 37 affectent le droit à un procès équitable :

Protection du droit à un procès équitable

37.3 (1) Le juge qui préside un procès criminel ou une autre instance criminelle peut rendre l’ordonnance qu’il estime indiquée dans les circonstances en vue de protéger le droit de l’accusé à un procès équitable, pourvu que telle ordonnance soit conforme à une ordonnance rendue au titre de l’un des paragraphes 37(4.1) à (6) relativement à ce procès ou à cette instance ou à la décision en appel portant sur une ordonnance rendue au titre de l’un ou l’autre de ces paragraphes.

Ordonnances éventuelles

(2) L’ordonnance rendue au titre du paragraphe (1) peut notamment :

a) annuler un chef d’accusation d’un acte d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation, ou autoriser l’instruction d’un chef d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation pour une infraction moins grave ou une infraction incluse;

b) ordonner l’arrêt des procédures;

c) être rendue à l’encontre de toute partie sur toute question liée aux renseignements dont la divulgation est interdite.

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

---

Protection of right to a fair trial

37.3 (1) A judge presiding at a criminal trial or other criminal proceeding may make any order that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial, as long as that order complies with the terms of any order made under any of subsections 37(4.1) to (6) [disclosure-related provisions] in relation to that trial or proceeding or any judgment made on appeal of an order made under any of those subsections.

Potential orders

(2) The orders that may be made under subsection (1) [Protection of right to a fair trial] include, but are not limited to, the following orders:

(a) an order dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information, or permitting the indictment or information to proceed only in respect of a lesser or included offence;

(b) an order effecting a stay of the proceedings; and

(c) an order finding against any party on any issue relating to information the disclosure of which is prohibited.

2001, c. 41, s. 43; 2015, c. 3, s. 14(F).

– CEA

---

Investigative Techniques Privilege

Investigative privilege flows from both the common law and s. 37 of the CEA.

The following have been recognized as privileged as an investigative technique:

• simulated ingestion of controlled substances
• location of a surveillance or observation post (sometimes called "observation point privilege")
• the location of tracking devices
• the location and methods of examining of secondary VINs
• Mobile Device Identifier or Cell Site Simulators

The privilege covers information that:

1. is used by the police in their law enforcement functions;
2. is not publicly known;
3. if disclosed, may assist offenders to interfere with or defeat police investigative function.

Purpose

Investigative privilege reflects the state's interest in preserving confidentiality of its investigations and techniques. It intends to protect against the risk of disclosing investigative techniques that might cause criminal offenders to "modify their activities in order to avoid detection."

Burden of Proof

The Crown holds the burden of proving that investigative privilege applies to evidence they seek to withhold.

Determination of Interest

A major consideration on whether to protect certain information about investigative techniques depends on "the extent of public knowledge about the investigative technique."

Information Affecting National Security

This privilege in the context of ministerial documents is sometimes called "Cabinet Privilege" or "Ministerial Privilege."

Section 38.01 of the Canada Evidence Act imposes obligations on participants in proceedings to notify the Attorney General of Canada of any potential disclosure of information believed to be "sensitive" or "potentially injurious". Section 38.02 then imposes an obligation not to disclose the information. It is then for the Attorney General to decide what to disclose. Parties seeking disclosure can apply to the Federal Court for an order of disclosure.

Parliamentary, Ministerial, and Cabinet Privilege

Section 39 protects information that is a "confidence of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada". This includes memos, discussion papers, agenda, deliberations, materials used to form decisions and policy (s. 39(2)) that is held by cabinet and parliamentary committees.(s. 39(3))

The onus is upon the government to establish a claim of cabinet privilege.

Appeals

• See Appeals Other Than Verdicts or Sentences

Voir également

• Informer Privilege
• National Defence and Security Privilege