Case-by-Case Privilege: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([a-zA-Z]+)\'\'\, \[http\:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([1-2][0-9]+ CanLII [0-9]+)\] \(SCC\)\, (\[[0-9]+\] [0-9]+ SCR [0-9]+)\{" to "{{CanLIIR|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{" |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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.<ref> | 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.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Gruenke|1fsjh|1991 CanLII 40 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 29 January 2021
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 (CanLII), 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 an 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.