Case-by-Case Privilege: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "{{perSCC|Binnie J}}" to "{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}"
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1"
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Currency|January 2012}}
[[fr:Privilège_au_cas_par_cas]]
{{Currency2|January|2012}}
{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderPrivilege}}
{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderPrivilege}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==

Latest revision as of 14:19, 14 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2012. (Rev. # 95215)

General Principles

A communication that does not fit into one of the class privileges may nonetheless be protected under the "case-by-case privilege" on an ad-hoc basis where the requisite criteria are met.[1]

Case-by-case privilege can be invoked where:[2]

  1. the communication originates in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed;
  2. the confidence is essential to the relationship in which the communication arises;
  3. the relationship is one which should be sedulously fostered in the public good; and
  4. the public interest in protecting the identity of the informant from disclosure outweighs the public interest in getting at the truth.
  1. R v Gruenke, 1991 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 263, per Lamer CJ
  2. R v National Post, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 477, per Binnie J
    Gruenke, ibid.

Journalist Sources

See also: Protection of Journalist Records and Sources

Confidentiality of journalistic sources can be measured on a case-by-case basis based on the "Wigmore criteria."[1] Where appropriate, "the courts will respect a promise of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor. However, where the public's interest in protecting sources is outweighed by other interests promises of secrecy cannot be maintained."[2]

The fourth criteria of the test has found not be made out where a journalist would not reveal a source who had potentially forged documents implicating a former prime minister in an illegal transaction.[3]

  1. R v National Post, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 477, per Binnie J
    see "case-by-case privilege" above
  2. National Post, ibid.
  3. National Post, ibid.