||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VERSION 1A
Date: 20170925
Docket: DES-4-17
Citation: 2017 FC 838
Ottawa, Ontario, September 25, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson
| BETWEEN:
|
| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Applicant
|
| and
|
| ALI OMAR ADER
|
| Respondent
|
AMENDED JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
The Attorney General of Canada brings this Application pursuant to section 38.04 of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5 [CEA] seeking an order confirming the statutory prohibition of disclosure of sensitive or potentially injurious information in the prosecution of Ali Omar Ader. Mr. Ader is a citizen of Somalia who has been charged with the criminal offence of hostage-taking contrary to section 279.1(2) of the Criminal Code. The charge arises out of the kidnapping of a Canadian freelance journalist in Somalia in 2008.
[2]
The Application has been heard in camera and ex parte. The Court has appointed an amicus curiae, Mr. Ian Carter, who has participated in the proceedings.
II.
History of the Proceedings
[3]
In August 2008, Ms. Amanda Lindhout, a Canadian citizen, and Mr. Nigel Brennan, a citizen of Australia, were abducted in Somalia where they were working as freelance journalists. The Crown alleges the hostage-takers sought the payment of a ransom and the pair was held until November 2009, a total of 15 months in captivity. Mr. Ader is alleged to have acted as the negotiator for the hostage-taking group and to have used several aliases in the course of the alleged offence including: (a) Ali ADEER; (b) Adam; (c) Adan; (d) And; (e) Adan Nur SAID (a.k.a. SIYAD); (f) Adan Abdulle OSMAN; (g) Cali Cummar ADEER; and (h) A/Salah Farah Nur.
[4]
A Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] investigation (Project Slype) was commenced with the Australian Federal Police [AFP] in response to the kidnapping and a number of other Canadian agencies were involved. There was close cooperation and the sharing of information with Australian authorities. The evidence indicates that the focus of the RCMP investigation between August 2008 and November 2009 was the release of Ms. Lindhout. |||||||||| foreign law enforcement, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| also contributed to efforts to secure Ms. Lindhout’s release by sharing information with their Canadian partner agencies. |||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[5]
The RCMP investigation continued subsequent to Ms. Lindhout’s release. It was this ongoing investigation that resulted in the 2015 arrest of Mr. Ader in Ottawa. Mr. Ader is currently in custody awaiting trial. His trial is scheduled to commence on October 2, 2017, before the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario in Ottawa.
[6]
In pursuing the prosecution of Mr. Ader, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada [PPSC] is required to disclose all relevant information in its possession and control, subject to any lawful privilege (R. v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, 68 CCC (3d) 1 [Stinchcombe] at pages 338-39, and 343). On November 30, 2016, the PPSC provided notice to the Attorney General that it believed sensitive or potentially injurious information, as defined in section 38 of the CEA, was contained in 29 documents that were subject to PPSC’s disclosure obligations. In March 2017, the Attorney General authorized the disclosure of information in 8 of the 29 documents.
[7]
On April 28, 2017, the Attorney General commenced this application seeking an order confirming the prohibition of disclosure of information in the 21 remaining documents. On May 5, 2017, Justice Simon Noël ordered that Ali Omar Ader be named as a respondent, that the Notice of Application be so amended and that a copy of the Amended Notice of Application be served on Mr. Ader or his counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding.
[8]
On May 11, 2017, the PPSC served the Attorney General with a second notice pursuant to section 38 of the CEA. This second notice resulted in the Attorney General identifying an additional 385 documents as containing sensitive or potentially injurious information that should be protected from disclosure. The initial 21 documents were filed with this Court on May 11, 2017. The remaining 385 documents were filed on June 29, 2017.
[9]
On May 17, 2017, Justice Noël appointed Mr. Ian Carter as amicus curiae for the purpose of assisting the court in the performance of its obligations under section 38 of the CEA. On June 26, 2017, having been assigned to this case by the Chief Justice, I issued an order establishing a schedule to prepare for the hearing of the application. Due to the volume of the information involved and the short time remaining before the scheduled commencement of the respondent’s criminal trial, I ordered that counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus engage in a pre-hearing review of all documents for the purpose of narrowing the section 38 claims.
[10]
Prior to being provided access to the protected documents the amicus was permitted to communicate with the parties, including the respondent, to gain an understanding of the parties’ areas of interest and to assist with the review of the documents. In a public hearing involving Mr. Ader’s counsel on June 29, 2017, his counsel advised the Court that some of the anticipated defences were known to the PPSC. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[11]
In the course of the public hearing on June 29, 2017, I offered Mr. Ader’s counsel the opportunity to be heard in an in camera and ex parte hearing. After consideration, Mr. Ader’s counsel requested the hearing for the purpose of providing an overview of the defence theory of the case to assist the Court and the amicus in assessing the potential relevance of the information subject to the section 38 claim. This in camera and ex parte hearing took place in the presence of the amicus on July 10, 2017. The understanding gained in the course of this hearing proved to be of value when applying the third step of the test articulated in Ribic v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 246, [2005] 1 FCR 33 [Ribic], addressed later in these reasons.
[12]
An in camera and ex parte hearing was held in Ottawa on August 28 and 30, 2017. The Attorney General filed five top secret affidavits in support of the application for non-disclosure. The affiants each represent a department or agency that has identified information to be protected from disclosure. Three of the affiants provided viva voce evidence on August 28, 2017. The three witnesses were subject to cross-examination by the amicus. The Attorney General prepared written submissions after the hearing of the evidence and the amicus relied on previously filed submissions in making his oral submissions. Oral submissions were heard on August 30, 2017.
A.
The documents
[13]
In addition to the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service [CSIS or the Service], the Communications Security Establishment [CSE], Global Affairs Canada [GAC], and the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces [DND] were involved in the Canadian response to the kidnapping.
[14]
As a result of their involvement, each of these agencies has identified information to be protected from disclosure. Various forms of harm or injury have been identified and relied on to justify protecting the information. The different harms have been assigned a colour code. The colour coding scheme is set out in the June 28, 2017 affidavit of Andrea De Bruyne. In the documents, the information over which redactions have been claimed is marked in a see-through readable format colour that corresponds to the identified harm or injury.
[15]
In many cases, the information is subject to overlapping claims. In those cases, the information is highlighted in each of the colours that correspond to the claimed harm. Claims advanced by agencies and departments are identified in the affidavit of the agency or departmental affiant.
[16]
In the course of the pre-hearing review, the amicus and counsel for the Attorney General reached a common view on a number of the claimed redactions. They have grouped the documents as follows:
Group 1:
Group 1(a) documents are documents where counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus have reached the common view that the claimed redactions are not contentious as originally filed and the prohibition on disclosure should be confirmed;
ii.
Group 1(b) documents contain claimed redactions where counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus have reached the common view that some of the claimed redactions are not contentious and the prohibition on disclosure should be confirmed but there are other redactions in the document where agreement has not been reached;
Group 2 documents contain claims that have been revised in the course of the pre-hearing review directed by this Court and counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus have reached the common view that the revised claims are not contentious, but there are other redactions in the documents where agreement has not been reached;
Group 3 documents are those documents where some or all of the redactions claimed remain in dispute and counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus have advanced their respective positions on each of these claims.
[17]
The Attorney General has also lifted a significant number of the initially claimed redactions in the course of this proceeding. Where there are multiple claims over the same information the lifting of one redaction does not remove the section 38 claim. However, where the lifting of redactions by the Attorney General has resulted in there being no remaining claim over information this has been reflected in the decision column of the chart attached at Amended Annex “B”
and the information ordered disclosed.
[18]
To assist the Court in the balancing of interests as required at step three of the Ribic analysis, the amicus characterized redacted information according to its potential value in the underlying proceeding. In doing so, information has been categorized as being “non-contentious”
where the amicus is of the opinion it is of minimal value. Where he is of the view that information could be of some potential value he has characterized the information as “relevant,”
and where he has categorized the information as being of greater potential value he has characterized it as “highly relevant.”
To avoid any confusion with the concept of relevance as understood in Stinchcombe, I have chosen to replace the amicus’ use of the terms “relevant”
and “highly relevant”
with the terms “some potential value,”
and “greater potential value,”
respectively.
III.
Legal Framework
[19]
Section 38 of the CEA establishes a procedure whereby information relating to international relations, national defence and national security may be protected from disclosure before a court, person or body with the jurisdiction to compel the production of information. In such a circumstance, notice is to be given to the Attorney General (section 38.01) who may at any time authorize disclosure of all or part of the information (section 38.03). Where the Attorney General does not authorize disclosure or enter into an agreement (section 38.031), the Attorney General may seek an order confirming the prohibition on disclosure before the Federal Court (section 38.04).
[20]
The relevant provisions of the CEA (sections 38, 38.01, 38.03, 38.031, 38.04, 38.06, 38.07, 38.11 and 38.14) are reproduced in Annex “A”
for ease of reference. In addition, references to section 38 in this judgment encompass sections 38 to 38.15 of the CEA.
IV.
Issues
[21]
The issue raised in this application is whether, with respect to each of the claims to protect information:
the prohibition on disclosure should be confirmed pursuant to subsection 38.06(3) of the CEA;
the information should be disclosed subject to the imposition of conditions to limit the injury to international relations, national defence or national security pursuant to subsection 38.06(2) of the CEA; or
the information should be disclosed pursuant to subsection 38.06(1) of the CEA.
V.
The Law
[22]
In assessing the nature of an order to be made pursuant to section 38.06, the Court engages a three step process as set out in Ribic. In considering the information the Attorney General seeks to protect the Court must: (1) determine the information’s relevance in the underlying proceeding; (2) determine whether the disclosure of the information would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security; and (3) where the evidence is both relevant and injurious, determine whether the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in protecting the information. The party seeking disclosure bears the onus of demonstrating relevance (Ribic at para 17). Where relevance is established the onus then shifts to the Attorney General to demonstrate injury (Ribic at para 20). In the third and final step, the onus shifts back to the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the public interest favours disclosure (Ribic at para 21).
[23]
In this case, where the underlying proceeding is a criminal prosecution, relevance is to be determined on the basis of whether the information “is relevant or not in the usual and common sense of the Stinchcombe rule, that is to say in the case at bar information, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, that may reasonably be useful to the defence”
(Ribic at para 17).
[24]
In the weighing of interests in the third and final step of the Ribic test, mere relevancy is insufficient to tip the balance in favour of disclosure. Rather the information must be assessed on a case by case basis and in doing so the Court is to consider those factors it determines necessary in the circumstances (Canada (Attorney General) v Khawaja, 2007 FC 490, (2007) 312 FTR 217 [Khawaja] at para 93). Relevant factors, identified in Khan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] 2 FC 316 (TD) , (1996) 1 FTR 81 [Khan] at para 26 and endorsed in Khawaja at paras 74 and 93 include:
the nature of the public interest sought to be protected by confidentiality;
whether the evidence in question will probably establish a fact crucial to the defence;
the seriousness of the charge or issues involved;
the admissibility of the documentation and the usefulness of it;
whether the party seeking disclosure has established that there are no other reasonable ways of obtaining information; and
whether the disclosure sought amounts to general discovery or a fishing expedition.
[25]
In considering this application, I am not undertaking a judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision to prohibit disclosure of information. Rather, I am required “to make [my] own decision as to whether the statutory ban ought to be lifted or not and issue an order accordingly”
(Ribic at para 15).
[26]
The threshold for relevance in the Stinchcombe sense is low. The Attorney General concedes that all of the information that is the subject of this application satisfies that threshold and is relevant in the context of Mr. Ader’s criminal prosecution.
VI.
Analysis
A.
Non-contentious claims
[27]
As noted above, the amicus and counsel for the Attorney General have engaged in discussions for the purposes of narrowing the claims that are contentious. They agree that in 242 of the 406 documents in issue, the information subject to the section 38 claim would be of minimal value in the criminal proceeding and are not contentious (the Group 1(a) documents referred to above). There are a further 130 documents that contain non-contentious claims (the Group 1(b) and Group 2 documents).
[28]
All of the claims advanced by DND and GAC have been identified as non-contentious. The DND role in responding to the kidnapping appears to have been limited. In the course of this proceeding only a single section 38 claim relating to DND (concerning the identity of a member of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command) has been maintained.
[29]
The GAC involvement was more substantial. The information GAC has identified for non-disclosure relates to the Government of Canada’s policy of not paying ransom to terrorists, the identity of third parties that had provided information to GAC, and Canadian assessments of foreign government officials, operations and policies.
[30]
Beyond the DND and GAC claims, the remaining non-contentious claims relate to information that the Attorney General submits could variously reveal or negatively impact: (1) areas or persons of interest to intelligence and security agencies; (2) intelligence-gathering capabilities and techniques; (3) operational activities |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| (4) relationships with foreign agencies; (5) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| (6) relationships with foreign governments; (7) the identities of employees; (8) internal procedures and methods; or (9) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[31]
I have reviewed each of these claims for non-disclosure.
[32]
I am satisfied that the redactions that have been identified as non-contentious satisfy the low threshold for relevance in the Stinchcombe context. I am also satisfied that the information contained in the non-contentious redactions falls within the section 38 definitions of sensitive and potentially injurious information and that disclosure would be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.
[33]
Moving to the third step of the Ribic test, and turning my mind to the factors that may be of assistance to the Court when weighing the competing interests, I share the view of the amicus and counsel for the Attorney General that the information would be of minimal value in the underlying criminal proceeding. I consider this factor to be determinative. The public interest in protecting the information far outweighs any interest favouring disclosure. The Attorney General’s prohibition on disclosure as it relates to the non-contentious claims in group 1(a), 1(b), and 2 documents is confirmed. This is reflected in the decision column of Amended Annex “B”
.
B.
Claims related to the RCMP
[34]
Some of the information that is the subject of this application was shared with the RCMP by a number of foreign agencies, including the Australian Federal Police [AFP]. Disclosure had been refused on the basis that it would be harmful to national security absent the consent of the originating foreign agency: such disclosure would violate what has been referred to in this proceeding as the “originator control principle”
or “third party rule”
. The principle is addressed in greater detail below but it is “not a principle of law and it is not absolute ...[i]ts application in each case must be scrutinized and actual risk of harm to the national interest established.”
(Canada (Attorney General) v Almalki, 2010 FC 1106, [2012] 2 FCR 508 at para 133).
[35]
Much of the information that originated with the AFP is contained in officers’ notes and RCMP reporting documents and has been identified by the amicus as being of greater potential value in the underlying criminal prosecution. Much of it relates to the relationship between Mr. Ader and a Mr. Salad and a Mr. Osoble.
[36]
At the hearing, counsel for the Attorney General advised the Court that the majority of the section 38 claims that had been advanced on the basis that the information had been shared with the RCMP by the AFP had been lifted. The RCMP affiant, Chief Superintendent Parsons, provided oral evidence at the hearing regarding the lifting of the claims. He testified that there are in effect cultural distinctions as between police agencies and intelligence agencies and these distinctions impact on how breaches of the third party rule may be viewed. He noted that police officers, unlike the intelligence community, are accustomed to having the “fruits of [their] endeavours”
reviewed publicly. He noted that, in this case, the RCMP sought consent to disclose late in the process from the Australian Federal Police and that there had not been a refusal of disclosure but rather a non-response. Chief Superintendent Parsons testified that he had personally undertaken a review of the section 38 claims relating to the RCMP just prior to the hearing to ensure the best possible disclosure was provided. His evidence was to the effect that he considered the absence of a refusal to disclose, his experience as a police officer, the informal circumstances in which information was exchanged and his view that not all breaches of the third party rule are the same (some are less serious than others). He concluded that AFP information assessed as being of potential value in the underlying criminal proceeding could be disclosed.
[37]
In lifting a significant number of the RCMP’s section 38 claims, the majority of the information relating to Mr. Salad and Mr. Osoble will be disclosed. The remaining RCMP claims that are in issue relate to third party information. The claims have been considered and the interests weighed as described in the analysis below.
C.
The remaining claims
[38]
As noted above, the relevance of the information the Attorney General has identified for non-disclosure is not in dispute. My consideration of the remaining claims will therefore focus on the second and third steps of the Ribic analysis: (1) would injury result from disclosure and (2) the weighing or balancing of the competing interests in disclosure versus non-disclosure where the information is determined to be injurious.
(1)
Would injury result to national security, national defence or international relations as a result of disclosure?
[39]
In assessing the potential for injury I must be satisfied, on a reasonableness standard that the opinion of the Attorney General that injury would result rests on a factual foundation that has been established in the evidence. In making this determination, the Attorney General’s assessment of potential injury is to be given considerable weight; it is not the role of the Court to second guess or substitute its opinion for that of the Attorney General (Khawaja at paras 63–65, citing Ribic at paras 18-20).
[40]
The affidavits filed by representatives of the RCMP, CSIS, CSE, DND and GAC address the nature of the potential injury disclosure would cause. My focus is on the evidence as it relates to the contested section 38 claims over CSE and CSIS information. In respect of those contested claims, the CSE and CSIS affiants have stated that disclosure of the information would |||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
(a)
Would information that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| be injurious?
[41]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[42]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[43]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||
[44]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[45]
|||||||||||||||||||| the CSIS affiant, described the Service’s relationships with a variety of international police and intelligence agencies. He too noted that Canada as a net importer of intelligence relies heavily on these relationships to obtain intelligence that would not otherwise be available. He stated that information is exchanged with foreign agencies subject to an express and/or implicit understanding that neither the information nor its source will be disclosed beyond the recipient: he refers to this as the “third party rule”
. He stated that to disclose the source or substance of foreign agency information would negatively impact the work of foreign partners, erode confidence in the Service and cause significant harm to the Service’s relationships and its ability to cooperate with foreign agencies in the future.
[46]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[47]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||
[48]
The jurisprudence reflects the importance of the originator control principle or the third party rule to the proper functioning of police and intelligence agencies, and that a failure on the part of the Government of Canada to protect such information could have significant consequences for Canada’s existing relationships and its ability to enter into new arrangements. (Canada (Attorney General ) v Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in relation to Maher Arar, 2007 FC 766, (2007) 316 FTR 279 [Arar] at para 77, Canada (Attorney General) v Al Telbani, 2014 FC 1050, [Telbani] at para 62).
[49]
When assessing injury, efforts undertaken to obtain consent are to be considered. The requirement to seek consent was canvassed by Justice Yves de Montigny in Telbani, at paras 72 and 73. In reviewing the relevant jurisprudence, Justice de Montigny states that any obligation to make “reasonable efforts”
to seek consent prior to a finding of injury had been qualified in more recent jurisprudence:
73. More recently, this Court somewhat qualified that obligation. In Arar (at paras 75 and 94), Justice Noël stated that he was of the opinion that it was not appropriate to draw a negative conclusion from the fact that the Attorney General did not seek consent from a foreign agency to disclose information, given the fact that such authorization would likely have been refused based on the evidence in the record. Justice Mosley found that the failure to make inquiries of foreign agencies regarding the disclosure of their information was not fatal but could be taken into consideration and could undermine a privilege claim, especially when the information appears innocuous on its face. In Almalki, he nonetheless accepted the Attorney General’s submissions to the effect that it would be futile to ask certain countries to consent to the disclosure of their information.
[50]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[51]
While each of the section 38 claims have been assessed on a case by case basis, I am satisfied that the Attorney General’s evidence demonstrates a significant public interest in not disclosing |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Similarly, there is a significant public interest in protecting from public disclosure |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The second step in the Ribic test has been satisfied in respect of this information.
(b)
Would disclosure of information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| CSE be injurious?
[52]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| stated that CSE’s general involvement in responding to the Lindhout kidnapping is not information that is being protected. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[53]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[54]
Again, I am satisfied that the Attorney General’s evidence demonstrates that the information the Attorney General seeks to protect under this head of injury would, if disclosed, be injurious to Canada’s national security interests.
(c)
Would information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||| be injurious?
[55]
In his evidence, |||||||||||||||||| stated that the fact that the Service was involved as part of the Government of Canada response to Ms. Lindhout’s kidnapping is not protected. However, the Service is seeking to protect information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| evidence was to the effect that disclosure of the information could reveal the nature and extent of information collected by the Service. This information would be of significance to an informed reader as it could reveal the effort undertaken and the degree or absence of success. Similarly it would identify areas of Service interest, and capabilities and methods of operation and investigation. The disclosure of this information could compromise ongoing and future investigations, and negatively impact information sharing and cooperation with foreign agencies.
[56]
|||||||||||||||||||| also acknowledged that the information in this case dated back to 2008 and 2009 but his evidence was that passage of time should not be determinative of the question of injury. He stated that investigations in the national security field can be lengthy, that individuals who cease to be of interest at one point may come to the attention of the Service again in the future, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[57]
Having considered |||||||||||||||||||||| evidence, I am satisfied that step 2 of the Ribic test has been satisfied and disclosure of information that would reveal Service |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| would be injurious to Canada’s national security interests.
(d)
Would information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| be injurious?
[58]
|||||||||||||||||||| provided evidence that the Service seeks to protect information that |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The Service also seeks to protect information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| In this case, the Service seeks to protect information relating to |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[59]
|||||||||||||||||||||| evidence was to the effect that disclosure of this type of information would reveal both capabilities and limitations. He testified that the protection of information disclosing |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
[60]
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[61]
As I understand the evidence of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
[62]
In this specific circumstance, and I limit my conclusion to this situation only, I am satisfied that disclosing the fact that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| I am also satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that it is reasonable to conclude that the disclosure of information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| would also be injurious to national security, again satisfying the second step of the Ribic analysis. |||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[63]
Having concluded that the information in the contested section 38 claims is information that if disclosed would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations I will now move to step 3 in the Ribic analysis.
D.
Does the public interest in disclosure outweigh by the public interest in protecting the information?
[64]
Balancing the competing interests at step 3 of the Ribic test, particularly where the underlying proceeding is a criminal prosecution is a difficult task (Ribic para 13). As stated in para 22 of Ribic:
22. Balancing the competing interests at stake requires the application of a more stringent test than the usual relevancy rule. Otherwise, as evidenced by the appellant’s position, relevant sensitive information would always be disclosed to the detriment of international relations, national defence or national security. It means in effect no balancing at all. This is what this Court said in the civil case of Jose Pereira E Hijos, S.A. et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2002 FCA 470, where Stone J.A., in relation to former sections 37 and 38 of the Act, wrote at paragraphs 17 and 18:
Thus, whether a question is relevant in the context of a section 37 and 38 determination is not to be viewed in the narrow sense of whether it is relevant to an issue pleaded, but rather to its relative importance in proving the claim or in defending it.
I respectfully agree with the Motions Judge, at paragraph 28, that “the information which the plaintiffs seek to obtain will not establish a fact crucial to the plaintiffs’ case”. As I read his reasons, this was a significant factor in determining whether the importance of disclosure was outweighed by the importance of protecting the specified public interest.
The Court considered the factors enumerated in R. v. Kahn, [1996] 2 F.C. 316 (F.C.T.D.): the nature of the public interest sought to be protected by confidentiality, the seriousness of the charge or issues involved, the admissibility of the documentation and the usefulness of it, whether there were other reasonable ways of obtaining the information, whether the disclosure sought amounted to general discovery or a fishing expedition and whether the information will probably establish a fact crucial to the defence. Obviously, the last two factors impose a higher threshold than simple relevancy.
[65]
On the other hand, and as recognized by Justice de Montigny in Telbani at para 70, the originator control principle or third party rule is similarly not determinative in the balancing process:
[70] As important as the third party rule might be, however, it cannot be absolute. There is no statutory basis for that “rule”, and the mere fact that a foreign agency did not relieve the Service (or any other Canadian agency) of its confidentiality obligation cannot suffice, on its own, to conclude that the disclosure of information thus obtained would be injurious to national security. Other factors must be considered, including the fact that the information in question was subsequently disclosed and is now in the public domain, as well as the passage of time. There must also [be] consideration for how the sharing of information, both quantitative and qualitative, with a foreign agency might be important for Canada. My colleague, Justice Noël, stated the following in Arar (at para 80):
When determining whether disclosure will cause harm, it is also important to consider the nature of Canada’s relationship with the law enforcement or intelligence agency from which the information was received. It is recognized that certain agencies are of greater importance to Canada and thus that more must be done to protect our relationship with them. Consequently, care must be taken when considering whether to circumvent the third party rule in what concerns information obtained from our most important allies.
[66]
The amicus has argued that in weighing the competing interests at stage 3 of the Ribic analysis, it is not necessary that the respondent demonstrate the evidence would be able to establish innocence. Rather the respondent must demonstrate that the evidence could be of assistance in raising a reasonable doubt. He submits that the information identified as being of some or greater potential greater value in the underlying proceeding is not peripheral: it is not information that pre-dates the offence, and is “directly related to the commission of the offences and, ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He submits that the information should be disclosed or summarized. In the alternative he argues, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Ahmad, 2011 SCC 6, [2011] 1 SCR 110 that the Court should order the trial judge be notified of the nature of the undisclosed information and be entitled to review the documents in their entirety for the purposes of section 38.14 of the CEA.
[67]
The argument in favour of disclosure relies, at least in part, on the form of the information. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The argument for disclosure implies that the nature of the information, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| is sufficient to conclude the interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in non-disclosure. I disagree. To accept this view would require one to accept that neither the content of the information nor other relevant factors or circumstances play a role in the weighing exercise. This is inconsistent with the principle reflected in Khan and the decision in Khawaja where Justice Mosley states at paras 92 and 93:
[92] Though a certain level of deference is owed to the decision of the Attorney General not to disclosure [sic] certain information, as evidenced by the approach that is taken by the Court in the second step of the section 38.06 test outlined above, it is equally clear that Parliament has tasked the Federal Court with the responsibility of balancing the competing public interests, subject to the override clause found in section 38.13. as was described recently by Chief Justice Lufty in Kjawaja, the three part test set out in Ribic in fact “establishes a balanced and nuanced approach to assessing disclosure”: above, at para. 46.
[93] Taking all of the above into account, I endorse the approach taken by Justice Blanchard in Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 10 and Justice Lemieux in Kempo. A case by case approach is the most appropriate approach to be taken under subsection 38.06(2) when the balancing step of the test is engaged, and the Court is free to consider those factors it deems necessary in the circumstances including but not limited to those noted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hijos, at paras 16, citing Khan at para. 26.
[68]
I have identified and considered the following factors and circumstances in weighing the competing interests in respect of the contested section 38 claims:
(1) the nature of the injury contemplated should the information be disclosed to include a consideration of the passage of time;
(2) the seriousness of the offence charged;
(3) the nature of the defence to be advanced;
(4) the unique nature of the information, or its availability from another source;
(5) the likelihood of admissibility in a criminal proceeding of the information in the form it exists; and
(6) whether the identified value of the information is speculative.
[69]
In considering the nature of the anticipated injury arising from disclosure, the injuries have been identified and discussed earlier in these reasons. The injuries however arise in respect of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| This has weighed heavily upon the balance but has not been determinative.
[70]
In considering the seriousness of the charge it is unquestionable that the charge Mr. Ader is facing is serious. Hostage taking contrary to section 279.1(2) of the Criminal Code is an indictable offence punishable by life imprisonment.
[71]
When considering the nature of the defence to be advanced, I have had the benefit, as noted above, of the information provided by Mr. Ader’s counsel. It is not my role as the section 38 judge to assess the availability or merits of a defence in a criminal proceeding and I will not embark on any such consideration. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||
[72]
In a few very limited instances where I have been unable to conclude with a high degree of certainty that information is not unique or where the information may be of particular value, I have included this information in a short summary. The summary is set out in the Decision column of Amended Annex “B”
. The summary reflects a number of pieces of information but does not attribute the information to any specific document, source or capability. In this way, I believe that information that is potentially unique and of value in the criminal proceeding will be disclosed while minimizing the injury to national security. In other very limited instances, I have ordered that redactions be lifted either because disclosure of the information will not, in my view, result in harm or the interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm. Again, these findings are reflected in the decision column of Amended Annex “B”
.
[73]
Unlike the situation in Telbani, where Justice de Montigny concluded that there was “not only relevant information but potentially extremely significant information”
to be found in the protected information, I have not identified any such information in this case. To put it another way, having carefully considered the redacted information that remains in issue I am unable to conclude that the non-disclosure of the information could materially affect the outcome of the underlying criminal proceeding.
[74]
Mr. Carter very ably argued that evidence that is of value or of relevance is not evidence that in and of itself establishes a fact or defence. Rather it is pieces of information that when woven together establish or support facts that will in turn support elements which may ultimately underpin a defence. He described this as a mosaic similar to the mosaic effect that is sometimes argued as a ground to not disclose information. I take no issue with Mr. Carter’s articulation of relevance and the difficulty created in trying to assess the value of specific pieces of information. However, Justice Mosley concluded in Khawaja at para 136 that “by itself the mosaic effect will usually not provide sufficient reason to prevent disclosure of what would otherwise appear to be an innocuous piece of information.”
I believe the same to be true in reverse. The fact that information may be of some value would normally be insufficient absent something more to tilt the balance in favour of disclosure where the interests in non-disclosure are significant, as they are here. As noted above however in the balancing of the interests, in Amended Annex “B”
I have ordered the disclosure of some information in a form that minimizes the injury to national security.
[75]
In some cases, the information has been identified as being of some value because it may support a third party records application for disclosure from uninterested third parties. In seeking third party disclosure in a criminal proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the documents being sought are likely relevant to the proceeding. That burden has been described as significant but not onerous (R v McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, [2009] 1 SCR 66 at para 29). Mr. Carter takes the position that where protected information suggests that there may be additional information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| that does not form part of the disclosure package, this information needs to be disclosed because it may form the basis for a third party disclosure application. In my opinion this is somewhat speculative.
[76]
Mr. Carter points to R v. Alizadeh, 2013 ONSC 7540 [Alizadeh] as supporting his position. In Alizadeh an initial third party records application to bring CSIS documents before the court was refused on the basis that the “likely relevant”
threshold had not been satisfied. Following that decision some information was disclosed that was argued to be inconsistent with evidence in an affidavit seeking a warrant. On this basis, and on reconsideration the Judge concluded the likely relevant threshold was satisfied. In my view, these facts are readily distinguishable from the circumstance here and Alizadeh is of no assistance. Information from which one might infer the possibility of further records which in turn might satisfy the “likely relevant”
standard in the third party records application is speculative. The speculative nature of the identified value of information for this purpose has been given some weight.
[77]
In considering non-disclosure of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| there have been no submissions made as to how or to what degree this information may be of value in the criminal proceeding and it is not evident that the information would be of value. The Attorney General on the other hand has demonstrated the injuries contemplated from disclosure and, as noted above, I am satisfied that disclosure of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| would be injurious in the specific circumstances of this case. I am of the opinion that the balance weighs in favour of the non-disclosure of this information.
[78]
The remaining issue to be addressed is the amicus’ position that where disclosure to the Respondent is not otherwise ordered, this Court should make an order providing the trial judge access to the section 38 information for the purposes of section 38.14 of the CEA.
[79]
The amicus’ position assumes that without such an order, the trial judge will be unable to assess the impact of non-disclosure on Mr. Ader’s fair trial interests. For the reasons that follow, I decline to make the requested order.
[80]
In Ahmad, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the constitutional validity of the section 38 process. The Court ultimately concluded that section 38 was constitutionally valid in creating a scheme to balance the potential conflict between the two fundamental obligations of preventing the disclosure of information that could pose a threat to national security, national defence or international relations, and the prosecution of individuals accused of offences against Canadian law. In finding the scheme constitutional, the Court found that section 38 does not prevent a trial judge from protecting an accused’s fair trial rights, stating at para 65:
What is essential for constitutional purposes is that the criminal courts retain the ability to ensure that every person who comes before them as the subject of a criminal prosecution receives a fundamentally fair trial. What is recognized in both s. 24(1) of the Charter and s. 38.14 of the CEA is that sometimes the only way to avoid an “[un]fair” trial is to have no trial at all. As we have explained, through s. 38.14 and the Charter, the criminal court trial judge possesses the means to safeguard the accused’s fair trial rights.
[81]
The Supreme Court also held that the public interest in protecting fair trial rights may only be served where the trial judge has an adequate understanding of the nature of the withheld information to exercise the powers contained in section 38.14 (Ahmad at para 33). The Court also noted that the section 38 scheme was flexible and that there were options available to ensure a trial judge was provided access to information necessary to determine fair trial rights (Ahmad at para 44).
[82]
The issue then is whether the trial judge is in possession of sufficient information to assess the impact of non-disclosure on an accused’s fair trial interests.
[83]
In this case, the trial judge will have access to the disclosed information and the publicly known involvement of the security agencies that seek to protect information in this application. The trial judge will also have access to the information that is to be disclosed as the result of the Attorney General having lifted section 38 claims in many documents, and the information otherwise ordered disclosed or summarized in the course of this proceeding. In addition, Amended Annex “B”
, which identifies each of the documents dealt with in this application and summarizes the manner in which the redactions have been addressed, has been drafted with the intent of it being publicly available. I have ordered that Amended Annex “B”
be provided to the Respondent and Amended Annex “B”
can in turn be made available to the trial judge at the option of the parties.
[84]
There will be instances where a section 38 judge will conclude that information beyond that made publically available or otherwise ordered disclosed will be necessary to allow a trial judge to assess fair trial interest. In those cases the flexibility of the section 38 process that was highlighted in Ahmad can be leveraged to make disclosure available to the trial judge (as was done in Khawaja). In my view this is not one of those cases. The information identified as being of value in the criminal proceeding is, as I indicated above, often not unique and does not reflect information, as was the case in Telbani, that is potentially extremely significant but not disclosed. I am of the opinion that further disclosure is not warranted for the purposes of section 38.14.
[85]
In coming to this conclusion, I hasten to add that the determination of what is or is not sufficient for the purposes of protecting an accused’s fair trial rights is exclusively within the purview of the trial judge. If the trial judge concludes that there is insufficient information available to determine if non-disclosure has materially affected trial fairness then, as contemplated in Ahmad, the trial judge may so advise the Crown, and seek “further and better disclosure”
from the Attorney General at that time (Ahmad at paras 51 and 52). This process will provide the Attorney General with the opportunity to respond to specific concerns through further disclosure, relying on section 38.03 of the CEA. In this regard I agree with the oral submissions of the Attorney General, an order of disclosure for the purposes of section 38.14 at this point and based on my assessment of the information is premature.
VII.
Conclusion
[86]
In the course of this proceeding, the amicus has submitted that the Court should communicate, or allow the amicus to communicate, to the Respondent that he may wish to consider certain courses of action. I have chosen to decline the invitation to do so. I agree with the position of counsel for the Applicant, that it is not the role of this Court to advise or guide counsel in the conduct of a proceeding.
[87]
I would like to thank counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus, Mr. Carter, for their commendable efforts and diligence in dealing with this Application. The large volume of material, tight timelines and the summer holiday period combined to present significant challenges and I am grateful for the efforts made on the part of all involved.
[88]
The Application is granted in part. The Attorney General’s prohibition on disclosure is confirmed to the extent set out in Amended Annex “B”
. Where, as reflected in Amended Annex “B”
, the prohibition on disclosure has not been confirmed, information has been summarized, or where prohibitions on disclosure have been lifted in the course of this proceeding the information shall be disclosed to the Respondent by the Attorney General through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Canada.
AMENDED JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
- The Application is granted in part;
- Disclosure of information in respect of which the Attorney General has applied to this Court is authorized in the form set out in Amended Annex
“B”
; - The prohibition on disclosure of any information not authorized to be disclosed in Amended Annex
“B”
is confirmed; - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- This Judgment and Reasons and the attached Amended Annex
“B”
will be released to the Applicant on the date of the signing of this judgment, pursuant to paragraph 38.02(2)(b) of the Canada Evidence Act; - If no appeal has been brought by the Applicant upon the expiry of the initial appeal period or at any time earlier the Applicant decides that no appeal will be brought, the Applicant shall provide the information authorized for disclosure as set out in Amended Annex
“B”
to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Canada for the purpose of disclosure to the Respondent; - The amicus curiae appointed to assist the Court in this matter may have access to the Judgment and Reasons, including Amended Annex
“B”
, at the Federal Court’s secure facility in Ottawa; - The Applicant in consultation with the amicus curiae shall propose redactions to this Judgment and Reasons for disclosure to the Respondent not later than ten (10) days after the expiry of the initial appeal period or at any time earlier should the Applicant decide that no appeal will be brought;
- This Judgment, with paragraph 4 above redacted, together with the attached Amended Annex
“B”
, will be released to the Respondent on the expiry of the appeal period accorded the Applicant under subsection 38.09 of the Canada Evidence Act if no appeal is brought by the Applicant during that period, or at any time earlier should the Applicant decide that no appeal will be brought; - For greater certainty, the Attorney General shall have ten (10) days following the day on which this Judgment is made to appeal and the period during which the Respondent may bring an appeal, as provided in subsection 38.09, shall be considered to run from the date of disclosure to the Respondent of the information authorized for disclosure or such further time as the Federal Court of Appeal may consider appropriate;
- This Judgment and Reasons shall not form part of the public record of these proceedings;
The ex parte Court records relating to the hearing of this Application shall be kept in a location to which the public has no access; and,
There is no order as to costs.
"Patrick Gleeson"
Judge
ANNEX “A”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AGC #
[1]
|
Document Description
|
s.38 Claims and Page #
|
Decision
[2]
|
|---|---|---|---|
| AGC0003
|
Notes of Jean Guy ISAYA from 2008-08-30 to 2008-09-03.
|
pp. 3-7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0004
|
SITREP #43 dated 2008-10-08 by Insp. Greg Laturnus.
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0005
|
Notes of Eliane CARON from 2008-09-24 to 2008-10-07.
|
pp. 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0006
|
Notes of Eric GORDON from 2008-09-30 to 2008-10-09.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0007
|
Mobile Device Forensic Analysis of Lorinda STEWARTS phone.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3, 48, 49
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0008
|
Information from Nigel Brennan received from GAC on 2009-11-26.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0009
|
Intelligence Update: report dated 2010-04-09.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redaction in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0010
|
Statement of Lorinda STEWART dated 2010-01-20.
|
p. 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0012
|
Notes of Abdillahi ROBLE from 2008-09-08 to 2008-09-28.
|
p. 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0015
|
Notes of Robert TRAN from 2011-10-03 to 2013-04-18.
|
p. 66
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0016
|
Notes from Manon NOEL DE TILLY from 2009-12-15.
|
p. 4, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0018
|
Notes of Matthew GALLANT from 2010-02-04 to 2011-03-03.
|
pp. 5, 7, 51-53, 65
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0020
|
Notes of Cris GASTALDO from 2008-08-23 to 2008-08-27.
|
p. 2, 5, 6, 8, 12
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0021
|
Notes from Elizabeth PORTER from 2013-10-23 to 2014-06-26.
|
pp. 12-14
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0022
|
Notes of Don STARNES from 2008-10-08 to 2008-10-12.
|
p.3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0023
|
Notes of Robert TRAN from 2014-09-10 to 2015-06-05.
|
p. 10
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claims contained in this document in the course of this proceeding.
No section 38 claims remain.
The document is to be disclosed.
|
| AGC0024
|
Notes of Etienne THAUVETTE from 2015-06-05 to 2015-06-10.
|
pp. 4, 5, 13
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0025
|
Notes of Ted OBRIEN from 2015-04-30 to 2015-06-15.
|
pp. 11-17, 19, 22, 29
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0026
|
Notes of Islam ISSA from 2015-05-28 to 2015-06-11.
|
pp. 9, 10, 13, 14
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0027
|
Notes of Henrich NEUWIRTH from 2015-06-07 to 2015-06-10.
|
p. 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0028
|
Notes of Philipe THIBODEAU from 2008-09-10 to 2008-09-26.
|
pp. 6, 27
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0030
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2018.
|
pp. 1, 2
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value
[3]
to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0031
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008 .
|
pp. 1-6
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0032
|
SIHU - RCMP email with report from Sept 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0033
|
SIHU - RCMP email with report.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0034
|
SIHU- RCMP email with report from Oct 2008.
|
pp. 1-10
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0035
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-7
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0036
|
SIHU- Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0037
|
SIHU - RCMP email from January 22, 2009.
|
pp. 1-5
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0038
|
SIHU- Report from Dec. 2008.
|
pp.1, 2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0039
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0040
|
SIHU - RCMP email with Report on Nov. 28, 2008.
|
pp. 1-12
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0041
|
SIHU - RCMP email with Report Dec. 14, 2008.
|
pp. 1-6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0042
|
SIHU - RCMP email.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0043
|
SIHU - RCMP email includes Report from Dec. 13, 2008.
|
pp. 1-10
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0044
|
SIHU - RCMP email includes Report from Dec. 11, 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0045
|
SIHU- Report from Dec 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0046
|
SIHU - Report from Dec. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0047
|
SIHU - Report from Dec. 2008.
|
p. 1-6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0048
|
SIHU - Report from Dec, 2008
|
p. 1
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0049
|
SIHU- Report Jan. 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0050
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2008.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0051
|
SIHU - Extract from report from Nov. 2008
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0052
|
SIHU- Report from Oct. 2008.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0053
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0054
|
SIHU - RCMP email with Reports of information from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-12
|
The amicus has identified the information contained in this document as having some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0055
|
SIHU - Excerpts/summaries of various CSIS disclosure letters and reports from Sept. and Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-12, 14,16,18, 19, 21
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0056
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0057
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-6
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0058
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0059
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0060
|
SIHU - Report from Nov 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0061
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0062
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2008.
|
pp. 1-5
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0063
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0064
|
SIHU-Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0065
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0066
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0067
|
SIHU - RCMP email with Report from Sept. 2008
|
pp. 1-7
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0068
|
SIHU- Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0069
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0070
|
SIHU- Report from foreign partner
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0071
|
SIHU- Report from August 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0072
|
SIHU - Report from August 2008.
|
pp. 1-6
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0073
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-9
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0074
|
SIHU- Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0075
|
SIHU- RCMP email with Reports from
Sept. and Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1, 3-12
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0076
|
SIHU - RCMP email, plus attachment with information from Sept 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0077
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
p. 2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0078
|
SIHU – Reports from: Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 2-6
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0079
|
SIHU- Report from Sept. 2008.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0080
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0081
|
SIHU - Excerpt from Report from Sept. 2008.
|
p. 2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0082
|
SIHU - Report information from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0083
|
SIHU - Report of information from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-7
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0084
|
SIHU - Reports, Oct 2008.
|
pp. 1-14
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0085
|
SIHU - Report, Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0086
|
SIHU: Report, Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0087
|
SIHU - Report, Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0088
|
SIHU - Report, Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0089
|
SIHU - Foreign partner report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0090
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0091
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0092
|
SIHU - Report from July 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(p. 2 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0093
|
SIHU - Report from July, 2009.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0094
|
SIHU - Report from July, 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0095
|
SIHU - Report from July 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0096
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0097
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0098
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0099
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0100
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0101
|
SIHU - Report from Sept 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0102
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0103
|
SIHU - Report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0104
|
SIHU - Foreign partner report from August 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0105
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2009.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0106
|
SIHU- Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0107
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0108
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0109
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0110
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0111
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0112
|
SIHU- Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0113
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0114
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0115
|
SIHU- Report from Sept. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0116
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0117
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(p. 3 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0118
|
SIHU - Foreign partner report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-5
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0119
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0120
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0121
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0122
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(p.3 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0123
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0124
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0125
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0126
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0127
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0128
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0129
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0130
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0131
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0132
|
SIHU - Report from Dec. 2008.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0133
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0134
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0135
|
SIHU - Report - no date .
|
pp. 1-4
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0136
|
SIHU - Report from Dec. 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0137
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 1-9
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0138
|
SIHU - RCMP situational report from April, 2009 with attachment.
|
pp. 2, 3, 5, 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0139
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2
(p. 2 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0140
|
SIHU - Report from Nov. 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2
(p. 2 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified that information contained in this document is of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0141
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0142
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2009.
|
p. 1
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0143
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0144
|
SIHU - Report from April 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0145
|
SIHU - Report from April 2009.
|
pp. 1-2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0146
|
SIHU - Report from Sept. 2008.
|
pp. 2-4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0147
|
SIHU - Report from Oct. 2008.
|
pp. 1-7
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0148
|
Undated one page document that RCMP Officer Vanderstoop used to source Part VI affidavit from 2009.
|
p. 1
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0153
|
Exhibit report of a cell phone seizure.
|
p. 1
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0157
|
RCMP BN Aug. 24, 2008.
|
pp. 2,3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0158
|
Oct 19/16 - RCMP Investigational Report.
|
p. 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0159
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 3 September 2008.
|
pp. 1-5,
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0160
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 1 September 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0161
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 30 August 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(pp 1, 2, 4 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0162
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 28 August 2008.
|
pp. 1, 3-6
(pp. 1, 5, and 6 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0163
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 26 August 2008.
|
pp. 1, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0165
|
RCMP sitrep/email from Sept 2008 |
pp. 2-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
1. All redactions on page 2;
2. All redactions on page 3.
No further s. 38 claims have been advanced. The information is to be disclosed.
|
| AGC0166
|
RCMP email string from Sept. 2, 2008.
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0167
|
SITREP. Negotiation position paper (10 Sept. 2008)
|
pp. 4, 5
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
1. All redactions on page 4.
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0168
|
RCMP investigation report from Sept. 9, 2008.
|
pp. 6, 7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0169
|
Briefing Note to the Deputy Commissioner Federal Policing with status of investigation as of 2008 Aug 26.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0170
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 3 September 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0171
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 30 August 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0172
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 29 August 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0173
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 28 August 2008.
|
Every page
(pp. 1, 2, 5, 6 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0174
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 27 August 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0175
|
Notes of Cpl. M. LeSage from Sept. 3 - 9, 2008.
|
pp. 16, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0176
|
Notes of M. Lesage from Aug. 24 to Sept. 2, 2008.
|
pp. 19, 25, 27, 44, 55
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0177
|
Notes of Eric Gordon from August 2008.
|
pp. 2, 5, 7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0178
|
Notes of Serge COTE 2008-08-25 to 2008-09-04.
|
pp. 2, 11, 12
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0179
|
Notes of Mike Ryan from Sept 1 to 9, 2008.
|
pp. 6, 7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0180
|
Notes of M. Lesage from August 24, 2008.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0181
|
Oct 31/16 - RCMP Raymond Forte's notebook.
|
pp. 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19
(pp. 8, 15, 19 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0182
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 3 September 2008.
|
pp. 1, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0183
|
Disclosure Letters for RCMP investigation dated 10 September 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8-10, 12
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0184
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 8 September 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0185
|
Project SLYPE NSCOB - ETRU Situational Report # 13.
Main Date 11-Sep-2008.
|
pp. 2, 8
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0186
|
Project SLYPE NSCOB - ETRU Situational Report # 12. |
pp. 2, 3, 5 , 6
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
1. All redactions on page 2;
2. All redactions on page 3;
3. The redaction on page 5 that reads 4. The redaction on page 6 that reads The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0187
|
NSCOB-ETRU Situational Report # 11- Sept. 9, 2008.
|
pp. 2-7
(pp. 6, 7 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
1. All section 38 redactions on page 2;
2. Page three the phrase at paragraph10 3. Page three at paragraph 10 and following 4. Page four at paragraph 13 5. Page four at paragraph 13 6. The second occurrence on page 5 that reads The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0188
|
Project SLYPE NSCOB - ETRU Situational Report # 10. |
p. 3, 5
(p. 5 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The following information that has been redacted at page 3, paragraph 9 is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0189
|
Project Slype Information Update from Supt. Larry Tremblay.
|
p. 16
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0190
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 5 September 2008.
|
pp. 5, 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0191
|
Email, 12 September 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0192
|
Oct 19/16 - Notebook of Greg Laturnus (RCMP)
|
pp. 5, 10, 11, 16-22
(pp. 5, 10, 11 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0193
|
Oct19/16 - Notebook of Ian Ross (RCMP).
|
p. 9
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0194
|
Briefing Note to the Deputy Commissioner Federal Policing.
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0195
|
Investigational Report (RCMP).
|
pp. 2, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0196
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 30 September 2008.
|
pp. 1-4, 7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0197
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 25 September 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0198
|
NSCOB-ETRU situational Report #27 and #28 |
pp. 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0199
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 29 September 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0200
|
Investigation report dated 13 September 2008.
|
pp. 2, 3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no additional section 38 claims on the document.
|
| AGC0201
|
Investigation report dated 14 September 2008.
|
pp. 3, 4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no additional section 38 claims on the document.
|
| AGC0202
|
PROOF OF LIFE Charts re Amanda LINDHOUT & Nigel BRENNAN.
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0203
|
Notebook of Christina Wright (RCMP).
|
pp. 4-9
(pp. 6-9 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0204
|
Notebook of Christina Wright (RCMP).
|
pp. 3, 4, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0205
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 17 October 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0206
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 6 October 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0207
|
Oct 19/16 - Notebook of Lucie Lacombe (RCMP).
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0208
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 20 October 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0209
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 27 October 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0210
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 28 October 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0211
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 23 October 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0212
|
Notebook of Christina Wright (RCMP).
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0213
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 29 October 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0214
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 28 October 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0216
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 4 November 2008.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0217
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 10 November 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0218
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 1 December 2008.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0219
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 14 November 2008.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0220
|
Situational Report 41: Main Date 23-Dec-2008.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0221
|
Fax from RCMP dated 24 December 2008, containing several documents.
|
pp. 5, 7, 8, 9
(pp. 5, 7, 9 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redaction in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0222
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 12 January 2009.
|
Every page
(pp. 1, 2, 4 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0223
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 23 December 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
(pp. 1, 2, 3, 6 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0224
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 13 January 2009.
|
pp. 1-5
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0225
|
Situational Report 145: January 29, 2009.
|
pp. 12, 13, 17
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0226
|
RCMP Situational Report 149 - dated February 4, 2009.
|
pp. 1-5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0227
|
Fax from, dated 4 February 2009, containing several documents.
|
pp. 2-8
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0228
|
RCMP Situational Report 51, dated January 8, 2009.
|
p. 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0229
|
RCMP Situational Report 53, dated January 12, 2009.
|
p. 4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0230
|
Tasking Form - Dated February 6, 2009.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0231
|
Tasking Form - dated February 9, 2009.
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0232
|
Report dated 4 February 2009.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0233
|
Report dated 4 February 2009.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0234
|
Report dated 16 February 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3
(pp. 1, 2 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0235
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 20 February 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0236
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 3 March 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0237
|
Message dated 24 March 2009
|
pp. 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0238
|
Report dated 24 March 2009.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0239
|
Report dated 9 March 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2, 8, 9
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0240
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 26 March 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0241
|
Report dated 27 March 2009.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0242
|
Report dated 27 March 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 17
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0244
|
RCMP email, April 16, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0245
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 16 April 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0246
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 27 April 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0247
|
Email, May 6, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0248
|
Tasking RCMP Notes of S. Akrum Ghadban, dated 2008-09-25 to 2009-05-13.
|
p. 8
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no additional section 38 claims on the document.
|
| AGC0249
|
Email Traffic dated May 11, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 5, 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0250
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 29 April 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0251
|
RCMP Situational Report, dated May 16, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0252
|
RCMP Situational Report, dated May 17, 2009.
|
pp. 3-5, 10-12
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0253
|
RCMP Situational Report 234, dated May 19, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 4, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0254
|
Email Traffic dated May 19, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3-12
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0255
|
RCMP Situational Report dated May 22, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 13
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0256
|
RCMP Situational Report 88, dated May 25, 2009.
|
pp. 5, 8, 9, 10
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0257
|
Email traffic dated May 20 - 21, 2009.
|
p. 1
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0258
|
Email traffic dated May 22 - 23, 2009.
|
p. 1
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0259
|
Email traffic dated May 23 - 24, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0260
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 14 May 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0261
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 14 May 2009.
|
pp. 1, 4, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0262
|
RCMP Situational Report 240, dated May 26, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 4, 8
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0263
|
Email Traffic dated May 25 - 26, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3,4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0264
|
Email Traffic dated May 27, 2009
|
pp. 1, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0265
|
Email traffic dated May 28, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0266
|
RCMP Situational Report 243, dated May 29, 2009.
|
p. 3, 5, 8
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0267
|
Email Traffic dated May 29, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0268
|
Email traffic dated May 30, 2009 |
pp. 1, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0269
|
Email traffic dated June 2, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0270
|
Email from Colin Lake to Evelyn Puxley (2 June).
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0271
|
Email traffic dated June 4, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0272
|
RCMP Situational Report 250, June 5, 2009
|
p. 2, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0273
|
Email traffic dated June 6, 2009.
|
pp. 1, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0274
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 2 June 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0275
|
Message dated 14 June 2009.
|
pp. 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0276
|
Tasking 88, dated June 29, 2009 |
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0277
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP dated 18 June 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3, 5
(pp. 1 and 5 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0278
|
Supplement to RCMP Situational Report 272 (4 July 2009).
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0279
|
Correspondence from L. Tremblay dated July 30, 2009.
|
p. 3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0280
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 21 July 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0281
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 27 July 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0282
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 25 September 2009.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0283
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 28 September 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(pp.1 and 3 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0284
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 6 October 2009.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0285
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 1 September 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0286
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 9 November 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0287
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 25 August 2009.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0288
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 24 August 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0289
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 2 July 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0290
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 25 March 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0291
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 10 November 2009.
|
pp. 1-4
(pp. 1 and 4 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0292
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 24 November 2009.
|
pp. 1-5
(p. 5 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0293
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 24 November 2009.
|
Every page
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0294
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 12 November 2009.
|
pp. 1-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0295
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 12 November 2009.
|
Every page
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0296
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 17 November 2009.
|
Every page
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0297
|
Emails from Marion Lamothe re |
p. 19
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0298
|
Email traffic of Marion LAMOTHE dated November 17, 2009.
|
p. 16
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0299
|
Emails from Marion Lamothe 2009-11-18.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0300
|
Email traffic of Marion LAMONTE, dated November 19, 2009.
|
pp. 2-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0301
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 12 November 2009.
|
pp. 1, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0302
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 24 November 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2, 4, 5
(pp. 1, 5 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0303
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 17 November 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(p. 2 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0304
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 17 November 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0305
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 7 October 2008.
|
Every page
(pp. 1, 2, 4 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0306
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 22 June 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0307
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 22 June 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0308
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 23 June 2009.
|
pp. 1-3
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0310
|
Table summarizing foreign agency intelligence reporting dated 2009-10-07.
|
Every page
(p. 1 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0311
|
RCMP Situational Report #2 dated August 28, 2008.
|
p. 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0312
|
RCMP Situational Report 3, dated August 29, 2008.
|
p. 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0313
|
RCMP Situational Report 5 dated August 31, 2008.
|
p. 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0314
|
RCMP Situational Report 6 dated 01/09/2008.
|
pp. 3, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0315
|
RCMP Situational Report 14 dated September 8, 2008.
|
pp. 3, 4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The following information that has been redacted at page 4, paragraph 10 is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0316
|
RCMP Situational Report 15, dated September 9, 2008.
|
pp. 3, 4, 5
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining claims are non-contentious. Those claims are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0317
|
RCMP Situational Report 16, dated September 10, 2008.
|
pp. 2, 3, 4
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0318
|
RCMP Situational Report 17 - dated September 11, 2008.
|
pp. 2, 3
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0319
|
RCMP Situational Report 21 dated September 16, 2008 |
p. 2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0320
|
RCMP Situational Report 22 dated September 17, 2008.
|
p. 2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0321
|
Intelligence report, 2008-09-08.
|
pp. 7, 8, 9
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no remaining section 38 claims in this document.
|
| AGC0322
|
RCMP Situational Report 127, dated January 7, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 4, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0323
|
RCMP Situational Report 128, dated January 8, 2009.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0324
|
RCMP Situational Report 148, dated February 3, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 3, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0325
|
Intelligence Summary Update dated 22 September 2008.
|
pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0326
|
RCMP Situational Report 228, dated May 13, 2009.
|
pp. 4, 5, 6, 9
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0327
|
RCMP Situational Report 233, providing updates as of May 18, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0328
|
RCMP Situational Report 239, dated May 25, 2009.
|
pp. 3-5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0329
|
RCMP Situational Report, dated May 27, 2009.
|
pp. 3-6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0330
|
RCMP Situational Report 242, dated May 28, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0331
|
RCMP Situational Report 244, dated May 30, 2009
|
pp. 3-5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0332
|
RCMP Situational Report 248, dated June 3, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 6-8
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0333
|
RCMP Situational Report 256, dated June 12, 2009.
|
pp. 2-4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0334
|
RCMP Situational Report 271 dated July 4, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0335
|
RCMP Situational Report 272, dated July 6, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 4, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0336
|
RCMP Situational Report 273, dated July 7, 2009. |
pp. 2, 4
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0337
|
RCMP Situational Report 274, dated July 8, 2009.
|
p. 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0338
|
RCMP Situational Report 278, dated July 14, 2009.
|
pp. 3, 5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0339
|
RCMP Situational Report 280, dated July 16, 2009.
|
p. 5
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redaction in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no remaining section 38 claims in this document.
|
| AGC0340
|
Disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 12 August 2010.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0341
|
Notebook of Cpl Daniel Martin (RCMP), from 2009-02-26 to 2009-0318.
|
p. 43
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0343
|
UNHCR (Canada) letter to RCMP, dated December 6, 2011.
|
Every page
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0344
|
Notebook of Sgt. Don Halina from August 24, 2008 - October 12, 2008.
|
pp. 25, 37, 50,54, 57-59, 62,64, 65, 73, 83, 120
(pp. 25, 37, 62, 64, 65, 83, 120 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0345
|
Notebook of Mike Lesage, dated 2008-09-10 to 2008-10-10.
|
pp. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 31, 36, 38
(pp. 5, 38 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The following information that has been redacted at page 36 is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
The interests otherwise weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0346
|
Notebook of Mike LESAGE, dated October 15, 2008 - November 26, 2008.
|
pp. 4, 26, 27, 30, 33, 36, 57, 58
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0347
|
Notebook of Mike Lesage dated November 21, 2008 - January 15, 2009.
|
pp. 26, 52
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0348
|
Notes of RCMP Mike Lesage dated January 16, 2009 - April 9, 2009.
|
pp. 11, 13,17, 24, 25, 27, 29
(pp. 13, 24, 25, 27, 29 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0349
|
Notes of RCMP Mike Lesage dated April 11, 2009 - May 5, 2009.
|
pp. 9, 23, 32, 35, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0350
|
Notes of RCMP Mike Lesage dated May 6, 2009 - January 14, 2010.
|
pp. 18, 35,42, 43, 44, 45, 46
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0351
|
Notes of RCMP Mike Ryan dated August 10, 2008 - September 26, 2008.
|
pp. 2-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15. 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 41, 42, 45, 51-55, 56-60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 89, 90, 92
(pp. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, 41, 42, 45, 51, 52, 54,55, 56-60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0352
|
Notes of RCMP Mike Ryan, dated March 21, 2009 - January 15, 2010.
|
pp. 4-6, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 40
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0353
|
Notebook #2 of Don Halina (RCMP), dated Oct 15, 2008.
|
pp. 7, 32, 37, 55
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0354
|
Notes of RCMP Dan Halina, dated November 24, 2008 - January 11, 2009.
|
pp. 15, 16
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0355
|
Notebook #4 of RCMP Don HALINA, dated February 4, 2009 - February 17, 2009.
|
pp. 2, 4-7, 16
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0356
|
Notes of RCMP Cpl. Elly Young, dated April 14, 2009 - May 8, 2009.
|
p. 25
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0357
|
Notebook of Cpl. France Pouliot (RCMP), dated 2008-11-18 to 2008-12-08.
|
p. 23
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0358
|
Notebook of Vic Park (RCMP), dated 2009-03-27 to 2009-05-30.
|
pp. 4, 8, 17-19, 22, 33, 37, 38, 40-42, 44, 51, 55, 59, 60, 62
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0359
|
Notebook of Vic Park (RCMP), dated from 2008-09-25 to 2009-01-30.
|
pp. 4, 5, 20, 22, 23
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0360
|
Notebook of Craig Massey (RCMP), dated 2009-04-04 to 2009-05-12
|
pp. 78, 79
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0361
|
Notebook of Wayne Hanniman (RCMP), dated 2009-07-29 to 2009-08-13.
|
pp. 6, 8, 11
(p. 6 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0362
|
Notebook of Brad Marks (RCMP), dated from 2009-03-25 to 2009-04-15.
|
p. 16
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0363
|
Notes of RCMP S/Sgt Jean Marc COLLINS dated 2008-12-09 to 2009-03-25.
|
p. 18
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The following information is to be disclosed. This information is disclosed as the result of the lifting of claims on page 96 of document #AGC0410. Injury has not been established:
Page 18 The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0364
|
Notes of RCMP S/Sgt Jean Marc COLLINS dated 2008-09-02 to 2009-12-09.
|
pp. 12, 24, 71, 77, 78
(pp. 12, 77, 78 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The amicus has notified the Court that the information at page 71 which was assessed as having greater potential value is now assessed as being of minimal value based on the evidence provided in the course of the hearing.
There are no remaining contentious claims in this document.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0365
|
Notebook of Greg Laturnus (RCMP), dated 2008-09-12 to 2008-12-19.
|
pp. 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, 23, 30, 31, 43, 52, 57, 58, 77
(pp. 5, 17, 43, 52, 77 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The following information is to be disclosed. This information is disclosed as the result of the lifting of claims on page 96 of document #AGC0410. Injury has not been established:
Page 58 The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0366
|
Notebook of Greg Laturnus (RCMP), dated 2009-01-24 to 2009-05-31.
|
pp. 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36-38, 41, 42, 46, 78, 90, 92, 100, 101
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0367
|
Notes of RCMP Insp. Greg Laternus from June 1-19, 2009.
|
pp. 8, 28, 31, 35, 36,39, 40, 44, 45
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0368
|
Notes of RCMP Supt. Bill Malone, dated Feb 28, 2009
|
pp. 7, 8
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0369
|
Notes of RCMP Andre GAUTHIER dated 2008-08-25 to 2008-09-16.
|
pp. 7, 8, 12, 19, 25,29, 32
(pp. 7, 8, 12, 19, 25, 32 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
There are no remaining contentious claims.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0370
|
Notes of RCMP Serge COTE dated 2009-01-08 to 2009-02-25.
|
pp. 4, 16, 22, 34, 38, 42, 66, 72, 88, 98
(pp. 4, 16, 34, 38, 42, 66, 88, 98 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0371
|
Notes of RCMP Sgt. Lucie LACOMBE dated 2009-05-24 to 2009-08-13.
|
pp. 2, 5, 8, 19, 26-30
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0372
|
Transcript of LINDHOUT's statement, taken 2009-12-06 |
pp. 1-167
(pp.141-146, 155-156, 158-160, 162-164 are contested)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0373
|
Notes of RCMP Gilles MICHAUD dated 2008 09 14 - 2008 10 31.
|
pp. 3, 32
(p. 3 claim not contested)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0374
|
Notes of RCMP Gilles MICHAUD dated 2008-10-31 to 2008-12-28.
|
p. 48
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
There are no remaining contentious claims.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0375
|
Notes of RCMP Gilles MICHAUD dated 2008-12-29 to 2009-03-03.
|
p. 26
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0376
|
Notes of RCMP Gilles MICHAUD dated 2009-06-18 to 2009-10-26.
|
p. 33
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0377
|
Notes of RCMP Supt. Marion Lamothe from August 23 to Sept. 4, 2008.
|
p. 18, 39, 43, 46
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0378
|
Notes of Supt. Lamothe - Sept. 5-21, 2008.
|
pp. 6, 8, 14, 22, 23, 29, 32, 33, 35-38, 41, 45, 48, 55, 62, 63
(pp. 6, 8, 14, 45, 48, 55, 62, 63 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
There are no remaining contentious claims.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0379
|
Notes of Supt. Lamothe from Sept. 29-Nov. 29, 2008.
|
pp. 3, 5, 52, 54, 93, 107
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0380
|
Notes of Supt. Lamothe from Dec. 1, 2008 to Feb. 16, 2009.
|
pp. 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 41
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0381
|
Notes of Supt. Lamothe from May 3 to June 4, 2009.
|
pp. 7, 8, 13, 18, 22
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0382
|
Notes of Supt. Lamothe from June 5 to August 18, 2009.
|
p. 41
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0383
|
Notes of Supt. Lamothe from Aug 19 to Dec 10, 2009
|
pp. 21, 53, 54, 82
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0384
|
Notes of Christina Wright from Oct. 29 to Dec. 23, 2008.
|
pp. 4, 5, 14-16
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0387
|
Notes of RCMP Eric GORDON dated 2008-10-31 to 2009-05-13.
|
pp. 49, 76, 78, 90, 122, 124, 152, 155, 156, 163
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0388
|
Notes of RCMP Eric GORDON dated 2009-05-14 to 2010-12-09.
|
pp. 2, 44, 47, 56, 59
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0389
|
Notes of RCMP Sgt AJ Kassam, dated 2008-09-02 to 2008-11-17.
|
pp.22, 51, 63, 64, 67
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0390
|
Notes of RCMP Sgt. AJ KASSAM dated 2008-12-06 to 2009-02-20.
|
pp. 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 24, 28, 30
(pp. 9, 15, 19, 24, 28, 30 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The following information is to be disclosed. This information is disclosed as the result of the lifting of claims on page 96 of document #AGC0410. Injury has not been established:
Page 10, right side of page The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0391
|
Notes of RCMP Peter RYAN dated 2008-08-27 to 2008-09-27.
|
pp. 50, 61, 67, 70, 71, 75, 90, 91
(pp. 50, 61, 91 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The remaining contentious claims have been considered.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0392
|
Notes of RCMP Peter RYAN dated 2008-09-28 to 2008-10-30.
|
pp.18, 20, 39, 40, 52, 54
(pp. 39, 40, 52, 54 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The following information is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0393
|
Notes of RCMP Peter RYAN dated 2008-10-31 to 2008-12-12.
|
pp. 6, 55, 57, 58
(pp. 57, 58 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The following information is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0394
|
Notes of RCMP Peter Ryan dated 2008-12-13 to 2009-02-07.
|
pp. 5, 74
(p. 74 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no remaining contentious claims.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0395
|
Notes of RCMP Peter RYAN dated 2009-03-02 to 2009-05-22.
|
pp. 9, 58, 80
(p. 80 not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0396
|
Notes of RCMP Peter RYAN dated 2009-06-08 to 2009-09-29.
|
pp. 34, 38, 44, 45
(pp. 44, 55 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
There are no remaining contentious claims.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0397
|
Notes of RCMP Peter RYAN dated 2009-09-30 to 2009-10-21.
|
p. 7
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0398
|
Notes of RCMP Garth PATTERSON dated 2008-08-24 to 2009-01-08
|
pp. 4, 9, 10, 14, 34, 35, 67, 75, 79, 80, 98, 99, 110, 119, 120, 137, 143, 146, 152
(pp. 4, 10, 35, 67, 75, 79,80, 98, 99, 110, 120, 137, 143, 146, 152 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The following information is to be disclosed. This information is disclosed as the result of the lifting of claims on page 96 of document #AGC0410. Injury has not been established:
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0399
|
Notes of RCMP Supt. Garth Patterson from April 9 to May 2, 2009.
|
pp. 4, 5, 8, 13, 25, 34, 45, 46, 63, 65, 69, 70
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0400
|
Notes of RCMP S/Sgt. Al McCambridge from June 15 to May 17, 2007.
|
pp. 41, 46, 62, 69, 92, 121, 125, 128
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0401
|
Notes of S/Sgt McCambridge from May 18 to July 11, 2009
|
pp. 6, 7, 9, 19, 22-24, 26, 36, 38, 43, 51, 52, 53, 63, 66, 78, 80, 83, 94, 96
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0408
|
Notes of Ray Forte(RCMP) from Sept. to Nov. 2008.
|
pp. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 40
(pp. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 40 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The following information is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0409
|
Notes of Ray Forte from Feb.-July 2009
|
pp. 4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 25, 27, 32, 48, 50, 52, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 71, 74, 78, 97, 105,
(pp. 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 25, 27, 32, 48, 50, 52, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 71, 74, 78, 105, not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0410
|
Notes of Ray Forte from Nov. 25, 2008 to Feb. 22, 2009.
|
pp. 6, 7, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 31, 47, 58, 68, 86, 96, 115, 130-132, 141, 161, 164, 172, 182, 184, 186, 187, 193
(pp. 6, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 47, 68, 115, 132, 141, 161, 164, 172, 186, 187, 193 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0411
|
Notes of RCMP Sgt. Cris Gastaldo from Aug. 28 to Sept. 11, 2008.
|
pp. 9, 49, 53, 54, 60, 64, 71, 72, 74
(pp. 9, 49, 54, 64, 71, 72, 74 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The remaining contentious claims have been considered.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0412
|
Notes of Sgt. Gastaldo from Sept. 12 to Oct. 6, 2008 |
pp. 5, 6, 15, 30
(p. 30 claim not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0413
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2008-12-20 to 2009-01-10.
|
pp. 33, 43
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0414
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2009-01-11 to 2009-02-25
|
pp. 3, 4,
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0415
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2009-04-07 to 2009-05-08.
|
pp. 47, 50, 89-91
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0416
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2009-06-11 to 2009-07-07.
|
pp. 7, 8, 30, 31, 34, 35, 54
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0417
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2009-07-08 to 2009-07-20.
|
pp.14, 20, 21, 26, 27, 34 36
(pp. 14, 20, 21, 34 claims not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0418
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2009-09-24 to 2009-12-21.
|
pp. 35, 37, 41, 44, 48, 49, 50, 61
(pp. 35, 41, 44, 48, 49 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of greater potential value to the defence.
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
The following information is to be disclosed. Injury has not been established:
Page 50 The interests weigh in favour of protecting the remaining information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0419
|
Notebook of Chris Gastaldo (RCMP) covering period of 2010-02-10 to 2010-05-06.
|
pp. 43, 45
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0420
|
Notes of RCMP Insp. Cal CHRUSTIE from 2008-09-11 to 2009-01-09.
|
pp. 11, 15, 21, 25, 54
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0421
|
Notes of RCMP Insp. Cal Chrustie, dated 2009-01-11 to 2009-07-09.
|
pp. 2, 22, 23, 25
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0422
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell (RCMP), dated 2008-08-23 to 2008-09-18.
|
pp. 10, 13, 19, 27, 34, 54, 78, 80, 84, 85, 88, 91, 93, 100, 111, 120, 122
(pp. 10, 13, 19, 27, 34, 54, 78, 80, 85, 88, 91, 93, 100, 111 not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The amicus has identified additional information in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0423
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell (RCMP) dated 2008-09-18 to 2008-10-31.
|
pp. 3, 28, 29, 45, 46, 47, 55, 97
(pp. 3, 28, 29, 46, 97 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0424
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell (RCMP), dated 2008-11-01 to 2008-12-12.
|
pp. 30, 32, 57, 72, 78, 97, 120
(pp. 30,32, 57, 78, 97 not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The amicus has identified additional information in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0425
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell (RCMP), dated 2008-12-13 to 2009-01-17.
|
pp. 26, 51, 53, 56, 98
(pp. 26, 51, 98 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0426
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell, dated 2009-01-18 to 2009-02-28.
|
pp. 11, 21, 29, 34
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0428
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell (RCMP), dated 2009-07-02 to 2009-10-14.
|
pp. 36, 47, 69, 70, 78
(pp. 36, 47, 69, 78 not contentious)
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0429
|
Notebook of Harold OConnell (RCMP), dated 2009-10-21 to 2010-01-04.
|
pp. 9, 12, 35, 36
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
These remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0430
|
Police Notebook of Larry Larin from 2011-01-05 to 2015-06-16.
|
pp. 6, 7, 8, 15, 33, 39, 51, 95, 99
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0432
|
Notebook of Cpl. Robert Tran from 2015-06-17 to 2015-09-16.
|
pp. 2, 3, 6
(not contentious)
|
The Attorney General lifted the claim over the following redactions in the course of this proceeding:
The information over which no section 38 claim has been maintained is to be disclosed.
These remaining claims were not contested.
The remaining redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0434
|
Unsigned disclosure Letter for RCMP investigation dated 19 November 2009.
|
pp. 1, 2
|
The amicus has identified information contained in this document to be of some potential value to the defence.
The interests weigh in favour of protecting the information.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0435
|
Fax sent from Diane Gagnon to Evelyn Puxley dated 2009-10-26.
|
p. 2
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0436
|
Email correspondence to RCMP SITREP 149 dated Feb 4, 2009 |
pp. 2-5
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
| AGC0437
|
Transcript of call between Lorinda Stewart, Nicole Bonney, John Chase, Mohammed and Musla.
|
pp. 5, 6
(not contentious)
|
These claims were not contested.
The redactions are maintained and the prohibition of disclosure is confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the directions given above, I am satisfied that there is some information that warrants disclosure. As a means of providing disclosure while minimizing harm the following information summary is to be disclosed:
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| DOCKET:
|
DES-4-17
|
| STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v ALI OMAR ADER
|
| PLACE OF HEARING:
|
Ottawa, Ontario
|
| DATE OF HEARING:
|
AUGUST 28 & 30, 2017
|
| JUDGMENT AND REASONS:
|
GLEESON J.
|
| DATED:
|
September 25, 2017
|
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. André Séguin
Ms. Jennifer George
|
For The Applicant
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Ian Carter
|
Amicus curiae
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Attorney General of Canada
|
For The Applicant
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Trevor Brown
Greenspon, Brown & Associates,
Ottawa, Ontario
|
For The Respondent
ALI OMAR ADER
|
| Bayne Sellar Ertel Carter,
Ottawa. Ontario
|
AMICUS CURIAE
|
[1]
The two section 38 Notices provided to the Attorney General on November 30, 2016 and May 11, 2017 identified 437 documents. Only 406 of the 437 documents contained section 38 claims and it is those 406 documents that have been considered in this Application and reflected in this chart. Skipped numbers in the AGC# sequence in this chart reflect documents that did not contain section 38 claims and have not been considered.
[2]
In weighing the interests at step 3 of the Ribic analysis I have considered the affidavit evidence provided by the RCMP, CSIS, CSE, GAC, and DND affiants. I have also considered the following factors and circumstances: (1) the nature of the injury contemplated should the information be disclosed to include a consideration of the passage of time;(2) the seriousness of the offence charged; (3) the nature of the defence to be advanced; (4) the unique nature of the information, or its availability from another source; (5) the likelihood of admissibility in a criminal proceeding of the information in the form it exists; and (6) whether the identified value of the information is speculative.
[3]
To aid the Court in the balancing of interests as required at step three of the Ribic analysis, the amicus characterized redacted information according to its potential value in the underlying proceeding. He characterized redacted information of minimal value as “non-contentious,” information of some potential value as “relevant,” and information of greater potential value as “highly relevant.” To avoid any confusion with the concept of relevance as understood in Stinchcombe, I have chosen to replace his use of the terms “relevant” and “highly relevant” with the terms “some potential value,” and “greater potential value,” respectively.