Lavallee Application (Precedent): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
 
(23 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Precedent Terms of Use}}
{{Precedent Terms of Use}}
==Notice==
==Notice==
{{seealso|Searches Intruding on Solicitor-Client Privilege}}
===Notice of Application===
{{seealso|Searches Intruding on Solicitor-Client Privilege|Law Office Searches}}
{|class="wikitable" style="width:650px; background-color:white"
{|class="wikitable" style="width:650px; background-color:white"
! Application to Access Presumed Privilege Records
! Application to Access Presumed Privilege Records
|-
|-
| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |-->
{{Style of Cause}}
{{Style of Cause}}


{{TITLE|NOTICE OF APPLICATION|(''Pursuant to R v Lavallee'')}}
{{TITLE|NOTICE OF APPLICATION|(''Ex Parte'')<br>(Application for Determination of Solicitor-Client Privilege)<Br>(''Pursuant to Lavallee v Canada'')}}


'''TAKE NOTICE''' that an Application is being sought for an Order granting the release ....
{{I-Start}}'''TAKE NOTICE''' that an Application pursuant to ''Lavallee v Canada'', [2002] 3 SCR 209 is being brought by the Crown for an Order releasing records [seized/produced] pursuant to a judicial authorization from the Law Society of [province] that had been receitved from the law firm, [firm] (the "firm"){{I-End}}
 
{{I-Start}}'''AND TAKE NOTICE''' that on or after [date], the RCMP anticipate executing a [s. 487 search warrant/production order] seeking firm records held by the [law society]. Terms of this warrant include the delivery under seal of potentially privileged records to the [court clerk's office] located at [address]. The Crown requests an ex parte appearance, on [date] or a date thereafter, before a Justice to schedule a formal Lavallee hearing to determine the status of privilege. Potential clients who have not waived privilege will be invited to attend.{{I-End}}
 
{{I-Start}}'''WHEREAS''' the [police force] are conducting an ongoing criminal investigation into the activities of [suspect] arising from allegations that they committed the offence(s) of [criminal offences].{{I-End}}
 
{{I-Start}}'''AND WHEREAS''' in the course of the investigation investigators [seized/intend to seize] certain records from [location/organization] that may be or are otherwise presumed to be potentially solicitor-client privileged. Pursuant to ''Lavallee v Canada'', 2002 SCC 61, [2002] 3 SCR 209, these records were sealed and delivered to the [prothonotary/clerk of the superior court]. {{I-End}}
 
{{I-Start}}'''AND WHEREAS''' the potential client(s) are entitled to notice of intrusion upon records that may be protected by solicitor.{{I-End}}


{{I-Start}}'''THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS'''{{I-End}}
{{I-Start}}'''THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS'''{{I-End}}
#  
# Any information received by a lawyer in his professional capacity is usually presumed confidential: ''Ott v Fleishman'', 1983 CanLII 489 (BC SC), 5 WWR 721, 46 BCLR 321. There is a presumption of confidentiality and privilege protecting all communications and information shared between the lawyer and client: ''Foster Wheeler v Societe intermunicipale de gestion et d'elmination des dechets'', 2004 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2004] 1 SCR 456. This presumption also attaches to records found in the client file held by counsel (''Chatham-Kent (Municipality) (Re)'', 2014 CanLII 63626 (ON IPC)) and any lawyer bills or fees paid (''Gault Estate v Gault Estate'', 2016 ABCA 208).
# Courts have a duty to not permit intrusion upon privilege where it might be present: see R v AB, 2014 NLCA 8 (CanLII), 346 Nfld & PEIR 218, per Harrington JA at paras 21 to 23;
# All potential clients are entitled to notice where the Crown seek out records that may be protected by solicitor-client privilege: ''Lavallee''
# It is the court’s responsibility——not any other parties'——to determine whether privilege exists once a claim of privilege has been made or where there is a legal presumption that privilege exists: see ''R v Herritt'', 2019 NSCA 92 (CanLII), 384 CCC (3d) 25, per Beveridge JA, at para 122.
# The process of executing a search set out while protecting privilege as set out by ''Lavallee'' requires a number of steps including:
##that "all documents in possession of a lawyer must be sealed before being examined or removed from the lawyer’s possession": ''Lavallee''.
## Every effort must be made to contact the lawyer and the client at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Where the lawyer or the client cannot be contacted, a representative of the Bar should be allowed to oversee the sealing and seizure of documents.
##The investigative officer executing the warrant should report to the justice of the peace the efforts made to contact all potential privilege holders, who should then be given a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim of privilege and, if that claim is contested, to have the issue judicially decided.
##If notification of potential privilege holders is not possible, the lawyer who had custody of the documents seized, or another lawyer appointed either by the Law Society or by the court, should examine the documents to determine whether a claim of privilege should be asserted, and should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so.
##The Attorney General may make submissions on the issue of privilege, but should not be permitted to inspect the documents beforehand. The prosecuting authority can only inspect the documents if and when it is determined by a judge that the documents are not privileged.
##Where sealed documents are found not to be privileged, they may be used in the normal course of the investigation.
## Where documents are found to be privileged, they are to be returned immediately to the holder of the privilege, or to a person designated by the court.
# The
# Any additional grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
# Any additional grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.


'''IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:'''
{{I-Start}}'''IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:'''{{I-End}}
#
# ...


'''THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:'''
{{I-Start}}'''THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:'''{{I-End}}
# An Order...
# An Order...


Line 32: Line 53:
|}
|}


<gdoc id="xxxx" width="750" height="1000" />
<gdoc id="1qLteCTZ-9YW56Ayn9snb7SmMIdKM8u7A8JDMbkhyenE" width="750" height="1000" />
 
<!--
===Notice to Potential Privilege-holders===
 
; NOTICE
[Law regulatory body] gives notice that police have served us with a [Warrant to Search/Production Order] dated [date] pursuant to section [487/490.014] of the Criminal Code. Execution
of this warrant was effected on [date] by the [police force]. The Warrant for the records relating to the practice of [lawyer], required production of:
# list of the records....
Those records that are possibly subject to a claim of privilege have been scaled and filed with the [level of court] in [location]. An application is being made by the Crown for access to the sealed materials on [date]. The [law regulatory body] is therefore providing this notice to former clients and others who may have been clients of [laywer], about whom information from out investigation may be disclosed in response to this Warrant. The [law regulatory body] will assert a claim of privilege over materials where a known former client docs not come forward to do so. Persons affected by this notice may contact the [law regulatory body] for more information, at [contact info].
-->


==Order==
==Order==
Line 39: Line 70:
! Order
! Order
|-
|-
| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |  
| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |-->
{{Style of Cause}}
{{Style of Cause}}
{{Style of Cause (Seal)}}


{{TITLE|ORDER|(''Pursuant to Lavallee'')}}
{{TITLE|ORDER|(''Pursuant to Lavallee'')}}


'''Before the Honourable Judge/Justice Presiding:'''
{{I-Start}}'''BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE:'''{{I-End}}
 
'''WHEREAS''' on [date], a justice of the peace granted multiple judicial authorizations under [section]{{CCC}} in relation to a criminal investigation for offence contrary to section(s) [list sections]{{CCC}}.


'''AND WHEREAS''' the affiant applied for and was granted the following Sealing Orders, sealing the authorization and Information to Obtain:
{{I-Start}}'''WHEREAS''' on [date], a justice of the peace granted multiple judicial authorizations under [section]{{CCC}} in relation to a criminal investigation for offence contrary to section(s) [list sections]{{CCC}}.{{I-End}}
{{List of Sealing Orders}}


'''AND WHEREAS''' the authorizations were executed on or about [date].
{{I-Start}}'''UPON THE APPLICATION''' by counsel for His Majesty the King, [name of counsel], for ....;{{I-End}}


'''UPON THE APPLICATION''' made by counsel for Her Majesty the Queen, [name of counsel], for an Order to vary the above-noted sealing orders so as to allow access to the judicial authorizations and supporting Informations to Obtain;
{{I-Start}}'''UPON READING''' the affidavit of [investigator affidavit] dated [date];{{I-End}}


'''UPON READING''' the affidavit of [investigator affidavit] dated [date];
{{I-Start}}'''AND UPON BEING SATISFIED''' the appropriate persons have been duly notified of these proceedings;{{I-End}}


'''IT IS ORDERED''' that the Sealing Orders referred to above shall be varied to allow for the release of all judicial authorization materials at issue including the supporting Information to Obtain after being subject to vetting by the Crown.
{{I-Start}}'''IT IS ORDERED''' that the ....{{I-End}}


{{DATED}}
{{DATED}}


<span style="display:inline-block; width: 300px;"></span>_________________________________________________
<span style="display:inline-block; width: 300px;"></span>_________________________________________________
<span style="display:inline-block; width: 300px;"></span>Judge of the [Level] Court of [Province]
<span style="display:inline-block; width: 300px;"></span>Justice of the [Level of Court] of [Province]


{{InternalCode}}
{{InternalCode}}

Latest revision as of 21:31, 23 December 2024

PRECEDENT TERMS OF USE

All forms, templates and precedents, including anything found on this page, can be used without the need for any attribution.

Notice

Notice of Application

See also: Searches Intruding on Solicitor-Client Privilege and Law Office Searches
Application to Access Presumed Privilege Records
-->

C A N A D A File# ________________
PROVINCE OF [PROVINCE]
COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

IN THE [LEVEL OF COURT] OF [PROVINCE]
([name] Region)

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING


– and –

[ACCUSED NAME]




NOTICE OF APPLICATION
(Ex Parte)
(Application for Determination of Solicitor-Client Privilege)
(Pursuant to Lavallee v Canada)




TAKE NOTICE that an Application pursuant to Lavallee v Canada, [2002] 3 SCR 209 is being brought by the Crown for an Order releasing records [seized/produced] pursuant to a judicial authorization from the Law Society of [province] that had been receitved from the law firm, [firm] (the "firm")

AND TAKE NOTICE that on or after [date], the RCMP anticipate executing a [s. 487 search warrant/production order] seeking firm records held by the [law society]. Terms of this warrant include the delivery under seal of potentially privileged records to the [court clerk's office] located at [address]. The Crown requests an ex parte appearance, on [date] or a date thereafter, before a Justice to schedule a formal Lavallee hearing to determine the status of privilege. Potential clients who have not waived privilege will be invited to attend.

WHEREAS the [police force] are conducting an ongoing criminal investigation into the activities of [suspect] arising from allegations that they committed the offence(s) of [criminal offences].

AND WHEREAS in the course of the investigation investigators [seized/intend to seize] certain records from [location/organization] that may be or are otherwise presumed to be potentially solicitor-client privileged. Pursuant to Lavallee v Canada, 2002 SCC 61, [2002] 3 SCR 209, these records were sealed and delivered to the [prothonotary/clerk of the superior court].

AND WHEREAS the potential client(s) are entitled to notice of intrusion upon records that may be protected by solicitor.

THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS

  1. Any information received by a lawyer in his professional capacity is usually presumed confidential: Ott v Fleishman, 1983 CanLII 489 (BC SC), 5 WWR 721, 46 BCLR 321. There is a presumption of confidentiality and privilege protecting all communications and information shared between the lawyer and client: Foster Wheeler v Societe intermunicipale de gestion et d'elmination des dechets, 2004 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2004] 1 SCR 456. This presumption also attaches to records found in the client file held by counsel (Chatham-Kent (Municipality) (Re), 2014 CanLII 63626 (ON IPC)) and any lawyer bills or fees paid (Gault Estate v Gault Estate, 2016 ABCA 208).
  2. Courts have a duty to not permit intrusion upon privilege where it might be present: see R v AB, 2014 NLCA 8 (CanLII), 346 Nfld & PEIR 218, per Harrington JA at paras 21 to 23;
  3. All potential clients are entitled to notice where the Crown seek out records that may be protected by solicitor-client privilege: Lavallee
  4. It is the court’s responsibility——not any other parties'——to determine whether privilege exists once a claim of privilege has been made or where there is a legal presumption that privilege exists: see R v Herritt, 2019 NSCA 92 (CanLII), 384 CCC (3d) 25, per Beveridge JA, at para 122.
  5. The process of executing a search set out while protecting privilege as set out by Lavallee requires a number of steps including:
    1. that "all documents in possession of a lawyer must be sealed before being examined or removed from the lawyer’s possession": Lavallee.
    2. Every effort must be made to contact the lawyer and the client at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Where the lawyer or the client cannot be contacted, a representative of the Bar should be allowed to oversee the sealing and seizure of documents.
    3. The investigative officer executing the warrant should report to the justice of the peace the efforts made to contact all potential privilege holders, who should then be given a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim of privilege and, if that claim is contested, to have the issue judicially decided.
    4. If notification of potential privilege holders is not possible, the lawyer who had custody of the documents seized, or another lawyer appointed either by the Law Society or by the court, should examine the documents to determine whether a claim of privilege should be asserted, and should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so.
    5. The Attorney General may make submissions on the issue of privilege, but should not be permitted to inspect the documents beforehand. The prosecuting authority can only inspect the documents if and when it is determined by a judge that the documents are not privileged.
    6. Where sealed documents are found not to be privileged, they may be used in the normal course of the investigation.
    7. Where documents are found to be privileged, they are to be returned immediately to the holder of the privilege, or to a person designated by the court.
  6. The
  7. Any additional grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

  1. ...

THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

  1. An Order...

DATED at ______________, in the Province of _______________, this _____ day of _____________, 20___.

_______________________________ [Counsel's name] [Counsels title]

[Internal File Coding]

<gdoc id="1qLteCTZ-9YW56Ayn9snb7SmMIdKM8u7A8JDMbkhyenE" width="750" height="1000" />


Order

Order
-->

C A N A D A File# ________________
PROVINCE OF [PROVINCE]
COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

IN THE [LEVEL OF COURT] OF [PROVINCE]
([name] Region)

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING


– and –

[ACCUSED NAME]




ORDER
(Pursuant to Lavallee)




BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE:

WHEREAS on [date], a justice of the peace granted multiple judicial authorizations under [section] of the Criminal Code in relation to a criminal investigation for offence contrary to section(s) [list sections] of the Criminal Code.

UPON THE APPLICATION by counsel for His Majesty the King, [name of counsel], for ....;

UPON READING the affidavit of [investigator affidavit] dated [date];

AND UPON BEING SATISFIED the appropriate persons have been duly notified of these proceedings;

IT IS ORDERED that the ....

DATED at ______________, in the Province of _______________, this _____ day of _____________, 20___.

_________________________________________________ Justice of the [Level of Court] of [Province]

[Internal File Coding]

<gdoc id="xxxx" width="750" height="1000" />