|
Evidence - Privilege - Solicitor-Client - Crown. R. v. Minassian
In R. v. Minassian (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered criminal "motion for production of documents", seeking disclosure of Crown communications related to a Crown expert.
The court considers the coverage of solicitor-client privilege as it relates to the Crown, here in a criminal appeal context:[38] Assuming for the sake of argument that the reason for selecting certain cases can be separated from the list of cases, there is no reasonable possibility that the reason for selection, on its own, would assist the applicant in developing and obtaining material that will be admissible as fresh evidence. In any event, I agree that the details of the Crown’s internal review, including how it was tailored, are protected by solicitor-client privilege. That privilege extends to internal government legal advice, reviews and communications: see e.g. R. v. Shirose, 1999 CanLII 676 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565, at paras. 49-50; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, at para. 36; Whitley v. United States of America (1994), 1994 CanLII 498 (ON CA), 119 D.L.R. (4th) 693 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 707, aff’d 1996 CanLII 225 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; and Blank v. Canada (Justice), 2016 FCA 189, 7 Admin. L.R. (6th) 30, at paras. 38-56, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 403.
|
