Case-by-Case Privilege: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "([A-Z][a-z]+){{ibid}}<" to "{{ibid1|$1}}<" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Case-by-case privilege can be invoked where:<ref> | Case-by-case privilege can be invoked where:<ref> | ||
''R v National Post'', [2010] 1 SCR 477, [http://canlii.ca/t/29l77 2010 SCC 16] (CanLII){{perSCC|Binnie J}}<br> | ''R v National Post'', [2010] 1 SCR 477, [http://canlii.ca/t/29l77 2010 SCC 16] (CanLII){{perSCC|Binnie J}}<br> | ||
{{ibid1|Gruenke}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
# the communication originates in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed; | # the communication originates in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed; | ||
Revision as of 01:41, 14 January 2019
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]
- the communication originates in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed;
- the confidence is essential to the relationship in which the communication arises;
- the relationship is one which should be sedulously fostered in the public good; and
- the public interest in protecting the identity of the informant from disclosure outweighs the public interest in getting at the truth.
- ↑ R v Gruenke, 1991 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 263, per Lamer CJ
- ↑
R v National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII), per Binnie J
Gruenke, ibid.
Journalist 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 a illegal transaction.[3]
- ↑
R v National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII), per Binnie J
see "case-by-case privilege" above - ↑ National Post, ibid.
- ↑
National Post, ibid.