2.5 Principles of Disclosure

Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook

Guideline of the Director Issued under Section 3(3)(c) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act

March 1, 2014

1. Introduction
2. Statement of Policy
3. Inclusions
4. Exceptional Situations
5. Exclusions
6. Disclosure Costs
7. Form of Disclosure

1. Introduction

In the seminal case on the Crown’s disclosure obligations, R v Stinchcombe,^{Footnote 1} the Supreme Court of Canada set out the duty on the part of the Crown to provide disclosure to an accused person. The Supreme Court makes it clear that the obligation, though broad, is not absolute, but is subject to Crown counsel’s discretion with respect to both the timing of disclosure and the withholding of information for valid purposes, including the protection of police informers, cabinet confidences and national security, international relations and national defence information.^{Footnote 2} The obligation is also subject to the limitation that the accused has no right to information that would distort the truth-seeking process.^{Footnote 3}

2. Statement of Policy^{Footnote 4}

There is a general duty on the part of the Crown to disclose all material it proposes to use at trial and especially all evidence which may assist the accused^{Footnote 5} even if the Crown does not propose to adduce it. While the Crown must err on the side of inclusion, it need not produce evidence that is beyond the control of the prosecution, clearly irrelevant, or privileged.

It is the Crown's obligation to disclose all information, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, that could “reasonably be used by the accused either in meeting the case for the Crown, advancing a defence or otherwise in making a decision which may affect the conduct of the defence such as, for example, whether to call evidence.”^{Footnote 6} Information is relevant for the purposes of the Crown's disclosure obligation if there is a reasonable possibility that the withholding of the information will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence.^{Footnote 7}

In all cases, whether a request has been received or not, Crown counsel should disclose any information, within their knowledge, tending to show that the accused may not have committed the offence charged. The inability of the Crown to make such disclosure may require a Crown stay or withdraw the charges or request a judicial stay of proceedings.^{Footnote 8}

The purpose of disclosure is two-fold:

to ensure that the accused knows the case to be met, and is able to make full answer and defence; and
to encourage the resolution of facts in issue including, where appropriate, the entering of guilty pleas at an early stage in the proceedings.

The information to be disclosed need not qualify as evidence; that is, it need not pass all of the tests concerning admissibility.^{Footnote 9} It is sufficient if the information is relevant, reliable and not subject to some form of privilege. Second-hand information that is unconfirmed may or may not be disclosed, depending on counsel's assessment of the issues in the case.

Crown counsel’s disclosure obligation is a continuing one and relates to information that comes to the attention of or into the possession of Crown counsel throughout the process and continues after conviction, including after appeals have been decided or the time of appeal has elapsed.^{Footnote 10}

3. Inclusions

Crown counsel shall, as soon as reasonably practicable,^{Footnote 11} provide disclosure. In most cases, this will mean that the defence will be given at least the following, subject to editing for statutory or common law privilege or a determination by Crown counsel that the information is irrelevant:^{Footnote 12}

3.1. Charging document

A copy of the information or indictment;

3.2. Particulars of the offence

Particulars^{Footnote 13} of the circumstances surrounding the offence. This may include a Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), an analytical document prepared by the investigative agency, which sets out the evidence relating to the elements of the offences and the investigators’ theory of the case;

3.3. Witness statements

Copies of the text of all written statements concerning the offence which have been made to the police or a person in authority by a person with relevant information to give; where the person has not provided a written statement, a copy or transcription,^{Footnote 14} if available, of any notes that were taken by investigators when interviewing the witness; if there are no notes, a ‘will-say’ or summary of the anticipated evidence of the witness. This requirement includes statements provided by persons whether or not Crown counsel proposes to call them as witnesses;

3.4. Audio/video evidence statements by witnesses

An appropriate opportunity^{Footnote 15} to view and listen to, in private, a copy of any audio or video recording of any statements made by a witness other than the accused to a person in authority.^{Footnote 16} This does not preclude Crown counsel, in his or her discretion, from providing copies of any video or audio recording or a transcript, where available and appropriate, but with appropriate disclosure conditions that take into account the sensitivity of the material. Where defence counsel is unwilling to accept the disclosure conditions, Crown counsel should seek to impose conditions by court order;

3.5. Statements by the accused

A copy of all written, audio or video recorded statements concerning the offence which have been made by the accused to a person in authority; in the case of oral statements, a verbatim account, where available, including any notes of the statement taken by investigators during the interview; if a verbatim account is not available, an account or description of the statement; and a reasonable opportunity to view and listen to, any original audio or video recorded statement of the accused to a person in authority. Copies of all such statements or access thereto should be provided whether or not they are intended to be relied upon by the Crown;^{Footnote 17}

3.6. Accused's criminal record

Particulars of the accused's and any co-accused’s criminal record;^{Footnote 18}

3.7. Expert witness reports

As soon as available, copies of all expert witness reports in the possession of Crown counsel relating to the offence, whether helpful to the Crown or not, should be disclosed. Counsel should pay close attention to s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code (Code), which requires notice to be given where an expert is to be called as a witness at trial;

3.8. Documentary and other evidence

Where reasonably capable of reproduction, copies of (or access to) all documents, photographs, audio or video recordings of anything other than a statement of a person, should be provided whether or not they are intended to be relied upon by the Crown. Where there exists a reasonable privacy or security interest of any victim(s) or witness(es) that cannot be satisfied by an appropriate undertaking from defence counsel, Crown counsel should seek to impose conditions by court order;

3.9. Exhibits

An appropriate opportunity^{Footnote 19} to inspect any case exhibits,^{Footnote 20} i.e., items seized or acquired during the investigation of the offence which are relevant to the charges against the accused;

3.10. Search warrants

A copy of any search warrant, whether relied on by the Crown or not, and, subject to relevance and the limitations in section 5 of this guideline, the information in support unless it has been sealed pursuant to a court order,^{Footnote 21} and a list of the items seized thereunder, if any;

3.11. Authorizations to intercept private communications

If intercepted private communications will be tendered, a copy of the judicial authorization or written consent under which the private communications were intercepted;^{Footnote 22}

3.12. Similar fact evidence

Particulars of similar fact evidence that Crown counsel intends to rely on at trial;

3.13. Identification evidence

Particulars of any procedures used outside court to identify the accused;^{Footnote 23}

3.14. Witnesses' criminal records^{Footnote 24}

Information regarding criminal records of material Crown or defence witnesses that is relevant to credibility may have to be disclosed.^{Footnote 25} This includes disciplinary records of police witnesses where those records fall within the scope of the Crown’s disclosure obligation pursuant to McNeil.^{Footnote 26} There is no obligation to do a criminal record check on all Crown witnesses.^{Footnote 27} Special care must be taken with police agents and other potentially disreputable witnesses, particularly foreign ones. A reliable copy^{Footnote 28} of the person's criminal record, and relevant information^{Footnote 29} relating to any outstanding criminal charges against the witness, must be disclosed. Crown counsel must request such information in writing from the relevant police authority^{Footnote 30} and place the letter and response on the file. Such information should be adduced by the Crown in the examination-in-chief of the witness.

If, at any point in the proceedings, it becomes apparent that the complete criminal record or the relevant information on outstanding charges was not disclosed, or the witness did not testify truthfully about those matters, defence counsel must be advised and Crown counsel must make immediate efforts to determine the reasons for the non-disclosure or misleading disclosure. Such efforts will include a written request for an explanation to the police officer “handling” the witness and his or her superior officer, and a request that the witness and “handler” be made available to testify on the issue, should the need arise.

3.15. Material relevant to the case-in-chief

Particulars of any other evidence on which Crown counsel intends to rely at trial;

3.16. Impeachment material

Any information in the possession of Crown counsel which the defence may use to impeach the credibility of a Crown witness in respect of the facts in issue in the case;^{Footnote 31}

3.17. Information obtained during witness interviews^{Footnote 32}

Crown counsel has an obligation to disclose any additional relevant information received from a Crown witness during an interview conducted by Crown counsel in preparation for trial. Additional relevant information includes information inconsistent with any prior statement(s) provided to the investigative agency, e.g. a recantation. Such information should be promptly disclosed to the defence or an unrepresented accused, subject to any limitations contemplated by section 5 of this guideline. To avoid the possibility of Crown counsel being called as a witness, interviews should be conducted in the presence of a police officer or other appropriate third person, where practical to do so;^{Footnote 33}

3.18. Information obtained by Crown Witness Coordinators

In Canada’s three territories, Crown counsel work closely with Crown Witness Coordinators (CWCs). CWCs are in frequent contact with victims and witnesses throughout the court process and often receive information from these sources between the time of initial contact and the trial or sentencing hearing.

The Crown’s disclosure obligation includes any additional relevant information received by CWCs from victims and civilian witness during interviews or other contacts with such persons. Crown counsel and CWCs must always ensure that any additional relevant information provided by victims and civilian witnesses is properly documented and if necessary disclosed. This will also allow Crown counsel to determine if it is necessary to ask police to interview the victim or civilian witness regarding the additional information;

3.19. Other material

Additional disclosure beyond that outlined in sections 3.1 to 3.17 above may be made at the discretion of Crown counsel. In exercising this discretion, Crown counsel shall balance the principle of fair and full disclosure, described in section 1 and 2 of this guideline, with the need, in appropriate circumstances, to limit the extent of disclosure, as outlined in section 5 of this guideline;

4. Exceptional Situations

4.1. Third party information

Information in the possession of third parties such as boards, social agencies, other government departments, rape crisis centres, women’s shelters, doctors’ offices, mental health and counselling services or foreign law enforcement agencies is not in the possession^{Footnote 34} of Crown counsel or the investigative agency for disclosure purposes. Where Crown counsel receives a request for information not in their possession or the possession of the investigative agency, the defence should be advised that these records are in the possession of a third party in a timely manner in order that the defence may take such steps to obtain the information as they see fit. Even where third party records are physically in the possession of the Crown, disclosure is not automatic. Unless the person to whom the information pertains has waived his or her rights, that person still has a privacy interest in the records.

If the Crown is put on notice or informed of the existence of potentially relevant information in the hands of a third party, including information pertaining to the credibility or reliability of the witnesses in a case, the Crown’s duty to make reasonable inquiries of that third party is triggered.^{Footnote 35} The third party is not obligated to provide them to the Crown on request. Crown counsel must disclose the request to the defence who may choose to bring an application for disclosure of the third party records.^{Footnote 36}

4.2. Protecting witnesses against interference

If the defence seeks information concerning the identity or location of a witness, Crown counsel must consider four factors: first, the right of an accused to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence; second, the principle that there is no property in a witness;^{Footnote 37} third, the right of a witness to privacy and to be left alone until required by subpoena to testify in court; fourth, the need for the criminal justice system to prevent intimidation or harassment of witnesses or their families, danger to their lives or safety, or other interference with the administration of justice.^{Footnote 38}

4.2.1. Consent release of information concerning a witness

Where the witness does not object to the release of information concerning his or her identity or location of a witness, and there exists no reasonable basis to believe that the disclosure will lead to interference with the witness or with the administration of justice as described above, the information may be provided to the accused without court order.

4.2.2. Witnesses refusing to be interviewed

Where a witness does not wish to be interviewed by or on behalf of an accused,^{Footnote 39} or where there is a reasonable basis to believe that the fourth consideration referred to in section 4.2 (interference with witnesses or their families) may arise on the facts of the case,^{Footnote 40} Crown counsel may hold back information concerning the identity or location of the witness unless a court of competent jurisdiction orders its disclosure.^{Footnote 41} Nevertheless, defence counsel must be advised of the existence of the witness and his or her relevant information.

4.2.3. Controlled interviews

Where a witness is willing to be interviewed, but there nonetheless exists a reasonable basis to believe that the disclosure of information concerning the identity or location of the witness may lead to interference with the witness or with the administration of justice as described above, including situations where the witness is in a Witness Protection Program, Crown counsel may decide to arrange for an interview by defence counsel at a location and under circumstances that will ensure the continued protection of the witness.^{Footnote 42} If the witness is protected under a Witness Protection Program, the agreement of the police agency administering the program will be required.

4.3. Unrepresented accused

An unrepresented accused is entitled to the same disclosure as a represented accused in order to make full answer and defence. However, the precise means by which disclosure is provided to an unrepresented accused is left to the discretion of Crown counsel based on the facts of the case.

If an unrepresented accused indicates an intention to proceed without counsel, Crown counsel shall advise the accused of the right to disclosure and how to obtain it.^{Footnote 43} This requirement does not preclude a guilty plea without disclosure, for example where the accused simply wishes to dispose of the charge as quickly as possible. Disclosure does not form a condition precedent to the entry of a guilty plea. However, an unrepresented accused must clearly indicate that he or she does not wish disclosure before a guilty plea is entered.^{Footnote 44}

If an unrepresented accused indicates an intention to plead guilty to an offence for which there will likely be a significant jail term, counsel should suggest to the presiding judge that an adjournment may be in order to permit disclosure to the accused. However, an adjournment is not required as a matter of law and much will depend on the circumstances of each case, including whether the accused is in custody.

If there are reasonable grounds for concern that leaving disclosure materials with an unrepresented accused would jeopardize the safety, security, privacy interests, or result in the harassment of any person, Crown counsel may provide disclosure by means of controlled and supervised, yet adequate and private, access to the disclosure materials. Special care may be required where an unrepresented accused personally seeks access to evidence where the integrity of that evidence may be placed in issue at trial, e.g., the drug exhibit, taped private communications.

Counsel should ensure that, where disclosure is made to an unrepresented accused, it is made subject to conditions governing the appropriate uses and limits upon the use of disclosure material. In cases in which there are no sensitive disclosure materials, these basic conditions provide fair warning for accused persons that the disclosure material is not to be disseminated or used for purposes other than to assist them in making full answer and defence in the prosecution. Violations by an accused of the conditions (contained in a cover letter) would likely give rise to a Crown request to impose those conditions on the accused by court order. Any breach of the court order could be dealt with pursuant to the court’s contempt powers. Counsel should be particularly mindful of the sensitivity of McNeil disclosure information, when dealing with self-represented accused persons.

In some cases, there may be sensitive disclosure materials, as well as some basic, non-sensitive, disclosure material. If the latter material can be separated from the rest of the disclosure it can be given to the accused with disclosure conditions. The sensitive portions of the disclosure could be dealt with by providing the accused either with access to the material in a private room in a police station or with the disclosure material subject to restrictive court-ordered conditions.^{Footnote 45}

Special care may also be required where an unrepresented accused is incarcerated. Incarcerated unrepresented accused persons are entitled to adequate and private access to disclosure materials under the control and supervision of custodial officials. Arrangements can be made with the jail to facilitate adequate and private electronic access to the disclosure materials.

Crown counsel must place a note on the Crown file concerning the nature, extent and timing of disclosure to an unrepresented accused, including any representations about disclosure made to the accused in court. This is especially important given the prospects of a Stinchcombe review of the decisions made by Crown counsel on the issue of disclosure.

4.4. Voluminous documentary evidence

In document heavy cases, counsel must particularly ensure that the disclosure provided to defence is well organized and capable of being searched. In other words, it must be reasonably accessible. As noted in Dunn,^{Footnote 46} “the greater the volume of material disclosed, the greater the need for organization and reasonable search capabilities”.

5. Exclusions

The Crown’s obligation to disclose is not absolute: only relevant information need be disclosed, and information which is relevant to the defence may be withheld on the basis of the existence of a legal privilege.^{Footnote 47}

Where Crown counsel decides not to disclose relevant information on the grounds of privilege, defence counsel should be advised of the refusal, the basis of the refusal (i.e., type of privilege alleged) and the general nature of the information withheld to the extent possible. However, in some circumstances, even the acknowledgement that information exists (i.e., information related to international relations, national defence or security or information regarding a police informer or an ongoing police investigation) would cause the harm that the privilege is seeking to prevent. In such circumstances, counsel are expected to exercise good judgment and consult with their Chief Federal Prosecutor to assess what is an appropriate course of action. If the fact of the existence of the privileged information cannot be disclosed, a stay of proceedings may be required.

Where disclosure of information is delayed to protect the safety or security of witnesses pursuant to section 4.2 of this guideline or to complete an investigation pursuant to section 5.3, Crown counsel must disclose the information as soon as the justification for the delay in disclosure no longer exists. The fact that some disclosure is being delayed should be communicated to the defence without revealing the reason for the delay.

5.1. Police informers^{Footnote 48}

Disclosure of information that may tend to identify a confidential police informer is not permitted. The Crown like the Court is under an obligation to protect the identity of a confidential police informer. The privilege cannot be waived unilaterally by the informant or by the Crown. This obligation is not limited to protecting the name of the informer: it extends to any information that may tend to reveal the identity of the person who provided information to the police. The vetting process must be done in close consultation with the police who are better placed to assess the degree of risk in unredacted information. The police informer privilege is subject to only one exception: where the accused’s factual innocence is at stake.

5.2. Reply evidence

During trial, Crown counsel must disclose any previously undisclosed information in Crown counsel’s possession, as soon as reasonably possible after it becomes apparent that the information is relevant. However, pre-trial disclosure is not required of reply evidence that could be tendered by the Crown in response to issues raised by the accused at trial, where the relevance of that evidence only becomes apparent during the course of the trial itself.^{Footnote 49}

For example, Crown counsel is not generally required to disclose evidence in his or her possession regarding the accused’s bad character. However, if the accused indicates that reliance will be placed on good character evidence in support of the defence advanced and the Crown becomes aware of information either rebutting or confirming the defence, the information must be promptly disclosed to the defence.^{Footnote 50} There is a general obligation to disclose any relevant information resulting from an investigation prompted by an accused’s pre-trial disclosure of a defence.

5.3. On-going investigations

Information that may prejudice an ongoing police investigation should not be disclosed.^{Footnote 51} It is important to note that the Crown may delay disclosure for this purpose but cannot refuse it, i.e., withhold disclosure for an indefinite period.

5.4. Investigative techniques

Information that may reveal confidential investigative techniques used by the police is generally protected from disclosure.

5.5. Cabinet confidences^{Footnote 52}

Information that constitutes a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada pursuant to s. 39(2) of the Canada Evidence Act^{Footnote 53} must be protected from disclosure.

5.6. International relations/national security/national defence^{Footnote 54}

Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act creates a scheme for the protection of ‘sensitive information’ and ‘potentially injurious information’, as defined in that section, with respect to international relations, national defence or national security.

5.7. Solicitor-client privilege

Information protected by solicitor-client privilege^{Footnote 55} cannot be disclosed, subject to waiver or any of the exceptions.

5.8. Work product privilege^{Footnote 56}

This privilege, whose object is to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial process, protects information or documents obtained or prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation, either anticipated or actual. Thus, Crown counsel generally need not disclose any internal notes, memoranda, correspondence or other materials generated by the Crown in preparation of the case for trial unless the work product contains material inconsistencies or additional facts not already disclosed to the defence.^{Footnote 57} As a general rule, work product applies to matters of opinion as opposed to matters of fact.^{Footnote 58} This privilege does not exempt disclosure of medical, scientific, or other experts’ reports.^{Footnote 59} Unlike solicitor-client privilege, this privilege has a limited lifespan and comes to an end, absent closely related proceedings, upon the termination of the litigation that gave rise to the privilege.^{Footnote 60}

6. Disclosure Costs

An accused person or his or her counsel shall not be charged a fee for ‘basic disclosure’ materials.^{Footnote 61}

“Basic disclosure” materials include the information, a synopsis, copies of witness statements or will-says, the Report to Crown Counsel, if one exists, and copies of documents, photographs and the like, that Crown counsel intends to introduce as exhibits in the Crown’s case. Each accused is entitled to one copy of ‘basic disclosure’ materials. Where an accused person requests an additional copy or copies, the accused may be charged a reasonable fee for this service.^{Footnote 62}

Costs associated with the preparation of copies of materials that are not part of ‘basic disclosure’, e.g., photographs that will not be introduced as exhibits by Crown counsel, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In instances of unfocused or unreasonable requests involving substantial numbers of documents, it may be appropriate to shift the resource burden to the defence, by requiring that the costs be borne by the accused.^{Footnote 63} Failing agreement, simple access without copies may be provided.

7. Form of Disclosure^{Footnote 64}

Crown counsel may provide the defence with copies of documents that fall within the scope of ‘basic disclosure’ materials as defined in section 6 of this guideline in either a paper format (e.g., photocopies), an electronic format (e.g., by CD-ROM) or a web-based format. Where the accused is unrepresented, Crown counsel should use his/her judgment as to whether copies of such documents should be provided in a paper format.

Where disclosure is in one of the two official languages, it does not need to be translated.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

[1991] 3 SCR 326.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

See Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5, ss 37, 38 and 39. See the PPSC Deskbook directives “4.1 Protecting Confidential Information under Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act”, “4.2 Protecting Confidential Information under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act” and “4.3 Protecting Cabinet Confidences under Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act”. See also the PPSC Deskbook guidelines “3.11 Informer Privilege” and “5.1 National Security”.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

R v Mills [1999] 3 SCR 668; (1999), 139 CCC (3d) 321 at 363-4.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

This guideline assumes that the accused is before a court in Canada charged with an offence in a domestic criminal proceeding. If charges were laid but the accused fled Canada or for some other reason is not before a Canadian court, there is no obligation to provide full disclosure. It may, however, be appropriate to provide counsel with a brief summary of the case. Where an accused absconds during a preliminary hearing or trial, and the hearing is continued in his absence pursuant to ss. 475 and 544 of the Code, the obligation to make disclosure to his counsel continues if counsel continues to act.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Information which “may assist the accused” is not always easily recognizable. It is difficult to provide ‘bright line’ guidelines respecting disclosure of the ‘unused’ material in the Crown's file. Counsel are expected to exercise good judgment and consult with senior managing lawyers in assessing what should and what need not be disclosed. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid a miscarriage of justice on the basis of non-disclosure.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

See R v Egger, [1993] 2 SCR 451 at 466-67.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

Stinchcombe, supra note 1 at 340.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

See R v Carosella, [1997] 1 SCR 80 for a discussion of lost or destroyed evidence.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411; (1995), 103 CCC (3d) 1 at 20 [O’Connor].

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Stinchcombe, supra note 1 at 14. See also the Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions, (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1993) at 206-208 [Martin Committee Report]. The purpose of this section is to underscore the proposition that disclosure is not a ‘one-shot’ deal.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

The phrase “as soon as reasonably practicable” is intended to provide a degree of flexibility based on the facts in individual cases. The right to disclosure is triggered by a disclosure request made by or on behalf of the accused, though the practice of waiting for the request by defence appears to differ across Canada. Where there has been a timely request, disclosure should be made before plea or election or any resolution discussions: Stinchcombe, supra note 1 at 14. Where the request is not timely, disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event before trial. See section 4.3 of this guideline, regarding unrepresented accused. Usually, disclosure will occur after the investigators have given Crown counsel the details of the case. In view of the respective roles played by investigators and Crown counsel in the criminal justice system, the investigative agency is in a unique, if not an exclusive, position to give Crown counsel the information required to be disclosed under this guideline. If the agency fails to do so, Crown counsel may need to assess the extent to which the accused is able to have a fair trial and decide whether, in the circumstances, an adjournment, stay of proceedings or other remedy is required or appropriate. The investigative agency, although operating independently of the prosecution, has a duty to disclose to Crown counsel, without prompting, all relevant information uncovered during the investigation of a crime, including information which assists the accused: Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 167. See also R v T (L.A.), (1993) 84 CCC (3d) 90 (Ont CA) at 94; R v V (W.J.), (1992) 72 CCC (3d) 97 (Nfld CA) at 109; R v McNeil 2009 SCC 3 [McNeil].

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

The ‘shopping list’ of information set out in this section is information that would normally be disclosed in a given case. Subject to the limitations in section 5 of this guideline, it is more in the nature of a minimal statement of disclosure on behalf of the prosecution. It is not intended to be exhaustive, see section 3.18 of this guideline regarding other material. Counsel should take into account the disclosure requirements described by provincial appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada when assessing the scope of disclosure required in any given case.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

‘Particulars’ is not intended in the sense that it is used in s 587 of the Code. Rather, it contemplates the provision of details or information concerning the circumstances surrounding the offence.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Stinchcombe, supra note 1 contemplates disclosure of the investigator’s notes or copies of notes concerning the interview of a witness. In some instances, it may be helpful to provide a transcription, although that is not required as a matter of law. Additionally, a notebook may contain many references to different investigations. Only those notes relating to the interview should be produced.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

In most instances, it will be appropriate to provide this access under the supervision of an investigator or Crown counsel.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

This section was not intended to require full access to, for instance, intercepted private communications made between co-conspirators, one of whom has now agreed to testify on behalf of the Crown. With respect to intercepted private communications generally, see section 3.11 of this guideline.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

Absent unusual circumstances, recordings made by a potential Crown witness through an electronic body pack should be disclosed. Special considerations may apply where counsel for the accused seeks access to intercepted private communications involving the accused. See sections 3.8, 3.9 and 3.11 of this guideline in this regard. Stinchcombe, supra note 1 requires disclosure of notes prepared during a custodial interview. Absent unusual circumstances, copies of undercover notes outlining conversations involving the accused should similarly be provided.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

Foreign convictions, if known, should also be disclosed. In some instances, they may be available through the Interpol office at RCMP Headquarters. In the case of foreign convictions, however, special care must be taken to confirm the proper identity of the person convicted.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

As in the case of recorded statements of a witness (see section 3.4 of this guideline), steps should be taken to ensure that access is provided under controlled circumstances which preserve the integrity of the case exhibit. How this can be achieved will depend on the circumstances in each case, although it may be appropriate to provide access only under the supervision of an investigator or employee of the investigating agency.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Where a case exhibit is detained by police pursuant to a court order, counsel for the accused may, depending on the circumstances, be required to obtain an order under s 490(15) of the Code before it can be examined.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

Requests for production of the information in support of a search warrant that has been sealed pursuant to a court order under s 487.3 of the Code will be governed by the substantive law and procedure set out in that section, and the case law as it is developing in this area. See the PPSC Deskbook guideline “3.4 Sealing Orders and Publication Bans”.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

The wiretap logs and session lists should be a routine part of the disclosure provided to the accused in every wiretap case, subject to editing for privilege and subject to appropriate undertakings or court-ordered conditions.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

This is especially important in undercover cases: disclosure should be made of any identification evidence such as license plate numbers, business cards, the post-operation “roundup”. Evidence or information of this nature often is not included in the brief to Crown counsel. Counsel should, therefore, ask the investigators to provide a briefing on the means by which the person arrested was identified as the person involved in the impugned transaction.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

If the accused is seeking access to a youth criminal record, Crown counsel should refer to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c 1 which governs disclosure of youth criminal records.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

Crown counsel have a discretion (reviewable by the trial judge) to determine whether information regarding a criminal record of a proposed witness is relevant to that witness’s credibility. Crown counsel will have to exercise discretion when assessing whether to disclose old criminal convictions or convictions for offences which could not really assist in the impeachment process. For example, a criminal conviction for impaired driving 10 years ago could hardly assist in impeaching the credibility of a witness in a drug trafficking trial. Furthermore, in northern regions, the automatic disclosure of criminal records of victims or witnesses may be problematic as it may stigmatize unnecessarily the witnesses. On the other hand, convictions for offences of dishonesty will almost always be relevant, regardless of when they were entered. The balance to be struck on this issue centers around the privacy interests of the witness, as measured against the accused’s right to test the Crown’s case.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

In McNeil, supra note 11 the Court emphasized that the Crown has a significant role to play as “gatekeeper” with respect to disclosure of police misconduct information. Prosecutors have an obligation to review misconduct material prior to disclosure to the accused. This role does not involve a wholesale turning over of material provided by the police but rather a “studied analysis” to determine if it is relevant to the defence.”

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

This obligation is limited to material witnesses whose credibility is in issue. See the Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 243.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

In Canada, this means a printout of the record held by the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC); for foreign witnesses, this means the CPIC equivalent.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

“Relevant information” means the nature of the charges, the court, and the status of the proceedings.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

“Relevant police authority” means the investigative agency which has been the primary contact with the witness in relation to the information at issue. For example, where the witness is being “handled” by a foreign investigative agency, the request should be made directly to that agency, and copied to the Canadian investigative agency in charge of the Canadian investigation.

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

This is a ‘catch-all’ provision, intended to require disclosure of (a) any other evidence forming part of the Crown’s case and (b) information that could be helpful for impeachment purposes. Counsel is expected to exercise careful judgment in assessing the extent to which background information concerning a witness need necessarily be disclosed. For production to be required, impeachment information must be capable of affecting the credibility of the witness with respect to some fact in issue in the case. Some information may be very invasive of privacy rights, e.g., information concerning a mental disorder which may bear upon the capacity of a witness to be sworn. Disclosure of records containing personal information in the possession of Crown counsel for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is governed by s 278.1 to 278.9 of the Code unless the witness to whom the record relates has expressly waived the application of those sections. In most instances, this section will require disclosure of the basic terms of the arrangement between the Crown and any co-operating accomplice expected to testify on behalf of the Crown, subject to the limitations in section 5 of this guideline. See section 3.14 of this guideline for information regarding criminal records of material Crown or defence witnesses.

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

This section does not require the disclosure of information protected by work product privilege. See section 5.8 in this regard.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Thus, if any new information comes to light, the officer or other third person can make notes to facilitate disclosure, and give whatever testimony may be necessary at trial in relation to that information.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

The concept of possession, in law, requires control. Without control there is no duty to disclose on the part of Crown counsel or the police. Records held by foreign law enforcement agencies are not in the possession or control of the Crown for disclosure purposes. A Canadian court has no jurisdiction to order anyone in the United States to disclose anything to the RCMP, the Crown or an accused directly: R v Lore (1997), 7 CR (5^th) 190 (Que CA) at 200.

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

See McNeil, supra note 11.

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

See McNeil, ibid and O’Connor, supra note 9.

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37

See R v Gibbons, (1947) 86 CCC 20 (Ont CA) at 28; Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right of an individual to be left alone and the appropriateness of preventing the unnecessary invasion of witnesses' privacy: R v Grant 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353 at para 153 per Binnie J. concurring and R v Rodgers 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 SCR 554 at para 36 per Charron J. for the majority; R v Duarte, [1990] 1 SCR 30, (1990), 53 CCC (3d) 1 at 11 and 15; R v Wong, [1990] 3 SCR 36, (1990), 60 CCC (3d) 460 esp at 483; R v Seaboyer, [1991] 2 SCR 577, (1991), 66 CCC (3d) 321 at 387; Stinchcombe, supra note 1 at 8-9. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized that Crown witnesses are not the property of the Crown whom Crown counsel can control and produce for examination by the defence: R v Khela, [1995] 4 SCR 201, (1995), 102 CCC (3d) 1 at 10.

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

While Crown counsel and the investigators may wish to ask if a witness wants to be interviewed by the defence, care should be taken to ensure that the witness understands that he or she is fully entitled to be interviewed or not to be interviewed. It should not be suggested (directly or indirectly) that it would be better not to be interviewed.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

There is a two-pronged test for determining whether information concerning whereabouts or identity should be withheld: first, has the witness expressed a desire not to be interviewed by the defence? Second, is there a reasonable basis to believe that the witness may be interfered with? The basis for the belief in a potential witness must be real, not imagined. The information available in each case should be examined carefully. Wherever reasonably practicable, Crown counsel should request a written threat assessment from the investigators where limits on disclosure are being considered on this basis. An adjournment may be necessary in these circumstances to ensure a fair trial. The threat assessment may, itself, be the subject of a disclosure request. Absent extraordinary circumstances, disclosure of this assessment should be resisted on the basis that confidential information is necessary in order to ensure that the discretion to produce or withhold is exercised properly. If the defence presses with this request, counsel should consult with the Chief Federal Prosecutor who may consult and, ultimately, the appropriate Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. In some instances, resort may have to be made to Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, supra note 2 to protect the confidential nature of this information. See the PPSC Deskbook directive “4.1 Protecting Confidential Information under Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act”, supra note 2.

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

An adjournment may be necessary in these circumstances to ensure a fair trial.

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42

In some instances, a controlled interview will provide the necessary balance between the right of the accused to full answer and defence and the need to protect the witness against interference or threats. The circumstances surrounding the interview should be agreed upon by Crown counsel and the investigators in advance of the interview. This could, in some situations, permit the presence of counsel for the witness or Crown counsel, and include a method of recording the interview.

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

The precise method by which the accused is informed of the availability of disclosure may vary from region to region. In some instances, the summons or appearance notice may provide this information. In others, Crown counsel may wish to provide the accused with a written or oral notification in court. In some regions, the judge presiding over first appearances may tell the accused that disclosure is available from the Crown.

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

See section 3.1 on unrepresented accused in the PPSC Deskbook guideline “3.7 Resolution Discussions”.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

Due to the sensitive nature of the disclosure on some files, Crown counsel should consider whether or not it is appropriate to provide disclosure to an out-of-custody self-represented accused by disk, hard drive or other electronic storage device.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

R v Dunn, 2009 CanLII 75397 (ONSC) at para 59. See also Beaulieu c R, 2011 QCCS 639 (CanLII) at para 32.

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

See Stinchcombe, supra note 1 at 340.

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

For a more complete discussion of this issue, see the PPSC Deskbook guideline “3.11 Informer Privilege”, supra note 2.

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 202. In general, the Crown's obligation is to adduce evidence that is relevant to an element of the offence that the Crown must prove, and not adduce evidence in chief to challenge a defence that an accused might possibly raise: R v Chaulk, [1990] 3 SCR 1303; (1990), 62 CCC (3d) 193 at 237 ff. Crown counsel cannot be expected to disclose information relevant to an issue not reasonably anticipated before trial. See also R v Wilson (1994), 87 CCC (3d) 115 (Ont CA).

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

See R v Hutter (1993), 86 CCC (3d) 81 (Ont CA) at 89–90, leave to appeal to the SCC refused and Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 206.

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

See Stinchcombe, supra note 1 at 9 and 12; Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 214. Thus, in certain circumstances, Crown counsel may have to consider staying a charge in order to avoid the disclosure of information that would prejudice an ongoing investigation.

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

For a more complete discussion of this issue, see the PPSC Deskbook directives “4.1 Protecting Confidential Information under Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act”, “4.2 Protecting Confidential Information under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act” and “4.3 Protecting Cabinet Confidences under Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act”, supra note 2.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

RSC 1985, c C-5.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

Ibid.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

See R v Campbell, [1999] 1 SCR 565. See generally Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455; Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 SCR 860; Solosky v The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 821; Idziak v Canada, [1992] 3 SCR 631; R v Creswell, [1998] BCJ No 1090 (QL). Note that solicitor-client privilege is waived where the police or the Crown rely on confidential legal advice to defend an abuse of process application even in circumstances where only the existence, and not the contents, of the advice is disclosed: Campbell, (ibid).

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56

Also referred to as ‘litigation privilege’. See also section 3.17 of this guideline, regarding information obtained during witness interviews.

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57

O’Connor, supra note 9 at 45 (per L’Heureux-Dubé J.) and at 86 (per Major J.). However, the Crown is obliged to turn over drawings and statements made by witnesses to the prosecution during pre-trial interviews, if they are new or contain new information. See also the Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 251.

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58

Martin Committee Report, ibid at 252.

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59

Martin Committee Report, ibid at 252. But see R v Petersen (1997), 155 Sask R 133 (QB) where spreadsheets prepared by the police regarding different theories as to how the accused had committed a complex fraud were held to fall within the work product domain. See also R v Stewart, [1997] OJ No 924 (QL) where the court recognized police and Crown work product in a database of electronic documents.

Return to footnote 59 referrer

Footnote 60

See Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 SCR 319.

Return to footnote 60 referrer

Footnote 61

Report of the Criminal Justice Review Committee, (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, February 1999) at 48. See also the Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 272; R v Blencowe (1997), 118 CCC (3d) 529 (Ont Ct (Gen Div)) at 537. The rule here is two-pronged: documents and photographs that will form part of the Crown’s case should be copied and provided to the accused at the expense of the government or the investigative agency. Documents the Crown does not intend to rely upon need not be copied, although upon request defence counsel should be provided with access to case exhibits not intended to be adduced at trial. See section 3.9 of this guideline regarding access to case exhibits.

Return to footnote 61 referrer

Footnote 62

Where defence counsel withdraws from the case, there is a professional obligation to pass disclosure on to new counsel representing the accused, or to return the disclosure to the Crown, if the disclosure conditions so direct. Accordingly, disclosure need not be copied a second time. Unusual situations should be discussed with the Chief Federal Prosecutor.

Return to footnote 62 referrer

Footnote 63

Martin Committee Report, supra note 10 at 273.

Return to footnote 63 referrer

Footnote 64

An accused is not entitled to insist upon a particular form of disclosure as a constitutional prerequisite: R v Blencowe, supra note 61 at 539. Nor does an accused have an absolute right to disclosure or production of original material: Stinchcombe, supra note 1. However, where the original is within the possession of either Crown counsel or the investigative agency, there is an obligation to allow the defence inspection of or access to the original.

Return to footnote 64 referrer

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]

Date modified:: 2015-07-23