Quashing a Subpoena: Difference between revisions
Created page with "{{Currency|January 2020}} {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderTestimony}} ==General Principles== {{seealso|Writ of Certiorari|Compelling Attendance of Witnesses}} ; Superior Court Jurisdiction Only a superior court justice has the power to quash a subpoena.<ref> {{CanLIIRP|Ben Aïssa|gvms4|2016 QCCQ 2830 (CanLII)|QJ 15685}}{{perQCCQ|Mascia J}}{{atsL|gvms4|24| to 29}} - a preliminary inquiry judge has no power to rule on request to quash<br> {{CanLIIRx|Rashwan|1j7b0|2004 CanLII 41169 (O..." Tag: wikieditor |
No edit summary Tag: wikieditor |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Maleki|1pwgv|2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII)|1 CTC 212}}{{perONCJ|Lane J}}{{atL|1pwgv|4}} (" ...while it was quite true that only the superior court has jurisdiction to quash subpoenas, such an order was not necessary, and that it was for the trial judge to make a determination of whether or not the evidence of the applicant is receivable on the trial. “If the trial judge concluded that the evidence was not receivable then he has the power, under s. 628(2) (now s. 700(2)) of the Criminal Code, to excuse the witness from attending.” ")<br> | {{CanLIIRP|Maleki|1pwgv|2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII)|1 CTC 212}}{{perONCJ|Lane J}}{{atL|1pwgv|4}} (" ...while it was quite true that only the superior court has jurisdiction to quash subpoenas, such an order was not necessary, and that it was for the trial judge to make a determination of whether or not the evidence of the applicant is receivable on the trial. “If the trial judge concluded that the evidence was not receivable then he has the power, under s. 628(2) (now s. 700(2)) of the Criminal Code, to excuse the witness from attending.” ")<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRPC|Re. Chase and the Queen|23ds9|1982 CanLII 304 (BC SC)|1 CCC (3d) 188}}{{perBCSC|MacKay J}} | {{CanLIIRPC|Re. Chase and the Queen|23ds9|1982 CanLII 304 (BC SC)|1 CCC (3d) 188}}{{perBCSC|MacKay J}} | ||
</ref> | |||
; General Test | |||
The general test quash a subpoena consist of:<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRC|Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub|2dq0p|2010 FC 1193 (CanLII)}}{{AtL|2dq0p|7}} | |||
</ref> | |||
* whether there is a "privilege or other legal rule which applies such that the witness should not be compelled to testify" or | |||
* whether there is "evidence from the witness subpoenaed relevant in regard to the issues the Court must decide" | |||
The burden is upon the party that seeks to sustain the subpoena.<Ref> | |||
Mahjoub at para 9 | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 07:39, 4 April 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2020. (Rev. # 91235) |
General Principles
- Superior Court Jurisdiction
Only a superior court justice has the power to quash a subpoena.[1] This is normally done by way of the prerogative writ of certiorari which is an extraordinary remedy available only to superior courts of inherent jurisdiction.[2]
- Provincial Court Jurisdiction
There is some suggestion that a preliminary inquiry judge may be entitled under s. 700(2) to adjudicate whether the witness has relevant testimony and excuse them if the evidence would be immaterial to the hearing.[3]
- General Test
The general test quash a subpoena consist of:[4]
- whether there is a "privilege or other legal rule which applies such that the witness should not be compelled to testify" or
- whether there is "evidence from the witness subpoenaed relevant in regard to the issues the Court must decide"
The burden is upon the party that seeks to sustain the subpoena.[5]
- Calling Opposing Counsel
It is only in "exceptional circumstances that Crown or defence counsel will be permitted to call opposing counsel as a witness."[6]
In order to call opposing counsel there must be an "evidentiary foundation for showing that the counsel's evidence is likely to be relevant and necessary."[7]
The standard is a high one requiring that there is "a real basis for believing that it is likely the witness can give material evidence."[8]
The reason for this standard is to avoid the mischief of trials being interrupted at random for fishing expeditions.[9]
The standard will be the same whether it is Crown or defence.[10]
- Crown Counsel
Crown counsel can seek to quash a subpeona on the basis that it amounts to a "fishing expedition."[11]
A subpoena for a Crown counsel may only be permitted where "the evidence cannot be obtained in any other way."[12] The added requirement to subpoena a Crown witness remains the same even once the Crown counsel is not longer counsel on the case.[13]
Subpoena power should be used cautiously to avoid frustrating the role of counsel by making them a witness in a case.[14]
Defence counsel cannot subpoena previous Crown counsel to give evidence on the reason for relying on notice of a prior conviction contrary to policy as it was not "absolutely essential."[15]
- ↑
R v Ben Aïssa, 2016 QCCQ 2830 (CanLII), QJ 15685, per Mascia J, at paras 24 to 29 - a preliminary inquiry judge has no power to rule on request to quash
R v Rashwan, 2004 CanLII 41169 (ON SC), per Spiegel J
R v Primeau, 1995 CanLII 143 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 60, per Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ re application for a writ of prohibition and remedy under s. 24(1) of Charter
- ↑ see Writ of Certiorari
- ↑
Ben Aïssa, supra, at paras 30 to 33 ("...a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice (provincial court)—though powerless to decide an application to quash—was entitled by virtue of s. 700(2) of the Criminal Code to hear submissions as to whether or not the evidence was receivable at the trial...")
R v Maleki, 2006 ONCJ 401 (CanLII), 1 CTC 212, per Lane J, at para 4 (" ...while it was quite true that only the superior court has jurisdiction to quash subpoenas, such an order was not necessary, and that it was for the trial judge to make a determination of whether or not the evidence of the applicant is receivable on the trial. “If the trial judge concluded that the evidence was not receivable then he has the power, under s. 628(2) (now s. 700(2)) of the Criminal Code, to excuse the witness from attending.” ")
Re. Chase and the Queen, 1982 CanLII 304 (BC SC), 1 CCC (3d) 188, per MacKay J - ↑ Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2010 FC 1193 (CanLII), at para 7
- ↑ Mahjoub at para 9
- ↑
R v Elliott, 2003 CanLII 24447 (ON CA), 181 CCC (3d) 118, per curiam, at para 114 ("It is only in exceptional circumstances that Crown or defence counsel will be permitted to call opposing counsel as a witness. It is not sufficient that the counsel may have material evidence to give. The party seeking to call opposing counsel must lay an evidentiary foundation for showing that the counsel’s evidence is likely to be relevant and necessary. This stringent test applies whether it is defence counsel seeking to call Crown counsel or Crown counsel seeking to call defence counsel. ...")
- ↑
Elliott, ibid., at para 114
- ↑
Elliott, ibid., at para 114
R v Stupp, Winthrope and Manus, 1982 CanLII 1897 (ON SC), 36 OR (2d) 206 at 219 (Ont. H.C.J.), per Craig J ("In my opinion, an accused person should not be permitted to call Crown counsel to conduct a fishing expedition or to examine in the hope that something might turn up that would assist him on the issue; but rather counsel must satisfy the judge that there is a real basis for believing that it is likely the witness can give material evidence")
- ↑
Stupp, ibid. ("If it is otherwise, preliminary hearings and trials can be interrupted at random; and the administration of criminal justice could be seriously impaired.")
- ↑
Elliott, supra, at para 114
- ↑ R v Harris, 1994 CanLII 2986 (ON CA), 93 CCC (3d) 478, per curiam
- ↑
R v Regan, [1996] NSJ No 625(*no CanLII links)
Harris, supra
R v Gervais, 1992 CanLII 3144 (QC CA), 75 CCC (3d) 61, per curiam
Black, supra
- ↑ Regan, supra (1996)
- ↑ R v Sungalia, [1992] OJ No 3718(*no CanLII links)
- ↑ R v Kim, 2010 ABQB 810 (CanLII), 507 AR 81, per Manderscheid J
Parliamentary Privilege
A member of a provincial or federal legislature can be exempt from attending court under subpoena on the basis of parliamentary privilege. The application of the privilege will be subject to an evaluation of necessity.[1]
- ↑ Samson Indian Nation and Band v Canada, 2003 FC 975 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 556, per Teitelbaum J
Other Protected Parties
Accused and Co-Accused
An accused person is generally assumed competent and compellable for the defence and not competent for the crown.[1]
A co-accused, charged separately, is a competent and compellable witness for both crown and defence. The only exception is if the only purpose in compelling the co-accused is to incriminate them.[2] The same goes for suspects, charged or uncharged.[3]
A co-accused, charged together, is competent but not compellable by the accused. It is the choice of the co-accused to testify.
Where the accused is a corporation, the officers of the corporation are compellable.[4]
- ↑ R v Amway Corp, 1989 CanLII 107 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 21, per Sopinka J (" At common law an accused was neither competent nor compellable as a witness.")
- ↑ R v Primeau, 1995 CanLII 143 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 60, per Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ
- ↑ R v Jobin, 1995 CanLII 144 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 78, per Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ
- ↑
R v N.M. Paterson & Sons Ltd., 1980 CanLII 227 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 679, per Chouinard J
Amway Corp, supra
Lawyers
A lawyer for an opposing party to an ongoing matter may only be called to testify where the calling party has shown a high degree of materiality and necessity.[1]
There are additional limitations on compelling Crown counsel to testify. It is only permitted where "the evidence cannot be obtained in any other way."[2]
- ↑ R v 1504413 Ontario Limited, 2008 ONCA 253 (CanLII), 230 CCC (3d) 193, per Armstrong JA, at para 17
- ↑ see Compelling Attendance of Witnesses#Quashing a Subpoena