Ottawa, Ontario, December 21, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONS
Applicant
THE COURT MARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR
Respondent
Docket: T-1968-05
AND BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONS
Applicant
and
THE CHIEF MILITARY JUDGE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
1. Introduction
[1] The Director of Military Prosecutions (the DMP or Applicant) wishes to bring a member of Canada’s Armed Forces (the Accused) before a Standing Court Martial to face allegations that he committed serious offences of aggravated assault and ill-treatment of a subordinate. To date, he has been unable to do so, due to the refusal of the Chief Military Judge (CMJ) to assign a military judge to preside at the court martial and the refusal of the Court Martial Administrator (the Administrator or CMA) to convene the court martial.
[2] The problem before this Court arises because the alleged assault and ill-treatment occurred during the time that the Accused was posted to a position with Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2), a special unit of Canada’s Armed Forces. Under a policy of the Armed Forces (discussed below), the name and other identifying features of the Accused cannot be made public. Thus, when the Administrator and the CMJ were provided with the charge sheet, it was classified as “SECRET”. The CMJ refused to assign a military judge to a court martial where the charge sheet and accompanying documentation were classified. The Administrator refused to issue a convening order.
[3] The DMP has brought two applications for judicial review (one against the Administrator (Court file No. T-1967-05) and one against the CMJ (Court File No. T-1968-05)), seeking orders of mandamus from this Court to compel the Administrator to convene and the CMJ to assign a military judge to preside at a Standing Court Martial of the Accused.
[4] I wish to stress that the issue before me is not about whether information related to JTF 2 should be held secret. Rather, this case is about who can make a decision of confidentiality and at what stage of military judicial proceedings that determination is to be made.
[5] The following sets out my reasons for dismissing both of these applications.
2. Issues
[6] The overarching issue in this application is whether the DMP has satisfied the requirements for a writ of mandamus. The equitable remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a public legal duty that a public authority refuses or neglects to carry out when called upon to do so. The test for mandamus that has been accepted by this Court (and that is not disputed by the parties to these applications) is set out in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 F.C. 742 (C.A.), 162 N.R. 177, aff'd [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100. In brief, the requirements that must be met are as follows:
(a) There must be a public legal duty to act;
(b) The duty must be owed to the applicant;
(c) There must be a clear right to the performance of that duty, meaning that:
a. the applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent; and
b. there must have been: a prior demand for performance; a reasonable time to comply with the demand, unless there was outright refusal; and, an express refusal, or an implied refusal through unreasonable delay;
(d) No other adequate remedy is available to the applicant;
(e) The Order sought must be of some practical value or effect;
(f) There is no equitable bar to the relief sought; and
(g) On a balance of convenience, mandamus should lie.
The burden is on the DMP to satisfy this Court that all elements of the test for mandamus exist.
[7] In this application, elements (a) and (d) are, in my view, determinative. Thus, as I see it, there are two issues to be examined:
- In the absence of a judicial determination that a charge be kept confidential, is there a public legal duty for the CMJ to appoint a military judge and, if so, a public legal duty for the Administrator to issue a convening order?
- Has the DMP met the burden to demonstrate that there is no other adequate legal remedy available?
3. Standard of Review
[8] The parties agree that the decisions of the Administrator and the CMJ, as questions of law, would be reviewable on a correctness standard. I do not disagree. However, the DMP has applied for a writ of mandamus, and not for an order quashing the decisions of the CMJ and the Administrator. Strictly speaking, I am not reviewing the decisions refusing to appoint a military judge or issue a convening order. Thus, it is not necessary to identify a standard of review.
4. Legislative Scheme
[9] Unlike Canada’s civilian justice system, the military justice system does not have a permanent court. Rather, it functions through ad hoc courts martial that only exist when they are convened to address specific charges. Key to the establishment and operation of a court martial are the DMP, the Administrator and the CMJ whose roles are intertwined at the preliminary stages. All three positions are filled by members of Canada’s Armed Forces.
4.1 The Director of Military Prosecutions
[10] I begin with the position of the DMP. The DMP is a barrister or advocate with at least ten years standing at the bar of a province who is appointed by the Minister of National Defence (s. 165.1, National Defence Act, R.S.C., c. N-5 (referred to as National Defence Act or NDA)). He or she is responsible for the preferring of all charges to be tried by court martial and for the conduct of all prosecutions at courts martial (s. 165.11). The DMP also bears responsibility for determining the type of court martial that is to try the accused person and informing the Court Martial Administrator of that determination (s. 165.14).
[11] For purposes of this application, the function of the DMP begins with the preferring of the charge against a person. Pursuant to s. 165(1):
|
165. (1) A person may be tried by court martial only if a charge against the person is preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a charge is preferred when the charge sheet in respect of the charge is signed by the Director of Military Prosecutions, or an officer authorized by the Director of Military Prosecutions to do so, and referred to the Court Martial Administrator.
|
|
165. (1) La cour martiale ne peut juger une personne sans une mise en accusation formelle de celle-ci par le directeur des poursuites militaires.
(2) Pour l’application de la présente loi, la mise en accusation est prononcée lorsque est déposé auprès de l’administrateur de la cour martiale un acte d’accusation signé par le directeur des poursuites militaires ou un officier dûment autorisé par lui à le faire.
|
4.2 The Chief Military Judge
[12] The Governor in Council may designate a military judge to the position of CMJ (s. 165.24). Pursuant to s. 165.25 of the National Defence Act, the CMJ “assigns military judges to preside at courts martial”.
4.3 The Court Martial Administrator
[13] The Administrator, who is appointed pursuant to s. 165.18 of the National Defence Act, acts under the general supervision of the CMJ (s. 165.19(3)) and performs “such other duties as may be specified by this Act or prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations” (s. 165.19(2)). Of relevance to this application, the Administrator’s role with respect to the convening of courts martial is set out in s. 165.19(1):
|
165.19 (1) When a charge is preferred, the Court Martial Administrator shall convene a court martial in accordance with the determination of the Director of Military Prosecutions under section 165.14 . . .
|
|
165.19 (1) L’administrateur de la cour martiale, conformément à la décision du directeur des poursuites militaires prise aux termes de l’article 165.14, convoque la cour martiale sélectionnée …
|
[14] Further guidance on the duties of the Administrator in the convening of a court martial is set out in the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (2005 revised) (QR&Os). Specifically, s. 111.02 requires that the convening order:
|
(c) identify by name, service number and rank if applicable, the accused, the military judge assigned to preside at the court martial and, in the case of a General Court Martial or Disciplinary Court Martial, the members and alternate members; and |
|
c) mentionne le nom, le numéro matricule et le grade le cas échéant de l’accusé, du juge militaire désigné pour présider la cour martiale et dans le cas d’une cour martiale générale ou d’une cour martiale disciplinaire, des membres et des substituts; |
4.4 The Court Martial Process
[15] In written submissions, the CMJ provided the following helpful review of the court martial process from the preparation of the charge sheet to the holding of the court martial. Other than submitting that steps 5 and 6 could occur concurrently, the DMP did not disagree with the summary. Implicit in the third step is the naming of a presiding military judge by the CMJ. The steps and the relevant statutory provisions are as follows:
- A charge sheet is prepared [s. 165(2) of NDA; QR&O 110.06];
- DMP refers the charge sheet to CMA [QR&O 110.07];
- CMA prepares convening order [s. 165.19 of NDA;];
- CMA forwards the convening order and the charge sheet [QR&O 111.05];
- CMA determines administrative requirements and issues administration instructions including the requirement for the publication of notice of the court martial [QR&O 111.13];
- Preliminary proceedings open to public [s. 187 of NDA; QR&O 112.03];
- The public is admitted at the beginning of the court martial [s. 180 of NDA, QR&O 112.05(2)(a)];
- The prosecutor and legal counsel to the accused take their place [QR&O 112.05(2)(b)];
- The military judge opens the court [QR&O 112.05(2)(c)];
- The accused is brought before the court [QR&O 112.05(2)(d)];
- The convening order is read publicly [QR&O 112.05(3)(a)];
- The judge hears any objection to the constitution of the Court Martial [QR&O 112.05(3)(b)];
- The judge takes the oath [QR&O 112.05(4)(a)];
- The court reporter is sworn [QR&O 112.05(4)(b)];
- The interpreter is sworn [QR&O 112.05(4)c];
- The prosecutor reads the charge sheet [QR&O 112.05(5)(a)];
- The judge may hear pleas in bar of trial [QR&O 112.05(5)(b)];
- The accused may apply for particulars [QR&O 112.05(5)(c)];
- The accused may request a separate trial [QR&O 112.05(5)(d)];
- The judge may on application by any of the parties hear and determine any questions of law or of mixed law and fact [QR&O 112.05(5)(e)];
[16] Parliament has spoken clearly that courts martial are to be public. Section 180(1) of the National Defence Act provides that the court martial shall be “public”, subject to the exception set out in s. 180(2). The relevant exception is as follows:
|
180. (2) A court martial may order that the public be excluded during the whole or any part of its proceedings if the court martial considers that it is necessary
(a) in the interests of public safety, defence or public morals;
(b) for the maintenance of order or the proper administration of military justice; or
(c) to prevent injury to international relations.
|
|
180. (2) Lorsqu’elle le juge nécessaire soit dans l’intérêt de la sécurité publique, de la défense ou de la moralité publique, soit dans l’intérêt du maintien de l’ordre ou de la bonne administration de la justice militaire, soit pour éviter toute atteinte aux relations internationales, la cour martiale peut ordonner le huis clos total ou partiel.
|
4.5 The Legislative Void
[17] Once a court martial has been convened (but, not until), preliminary matters may be dealt with by the military judge assigned to the case under both s. 180 and s. 187 of the National Defence Act. Section 180(2) is set out above. Section 187 provides as follows:
|
187. At any time after a General Court Martial or Disciplinary Court Martial is convened but before the panel of the court martial assembles, the military judge assigned to preside over the court martial may, on application,
(a) hear and determine any question, matter or objection for which the presence of the panel of the court martial is not required; and
(b) receive the accused person’s plea of guilty in respect of any charge and, if there are no other charges remaining before the court martial to which pleas of not guilty have been recorded, determine the sentence.
|
|
187. À tout moment après la convocation de la cour martiale générale ou la cour martiale disciplinaire et avant que le comité de la cour martiale ne commence à siéger, le juge militaire la présidant peut, sur demande :
a) entendre et statuer sur toute question ou objection pour laquelle il a le pouvoir d’entendre seul;
b) accepter le plaidoyer de culpabilité de l’accusé à l’égard d’une accusation et, lorsque celui-ci n’a pas plaidé non coupable à l’égard d’autres accusations, décider de la sentence. |
[18] As the National Defence Act exists today, preliminary matters may be heard and determined only after a military judge is assigned to preside over the court martial and the court martial is convened. There is nothing in the National Defence Act that allows for the appointment of a military judge to consider preliminary matters such as the sealing of a charge. The parties agree that there is a gap.
[19] There is a concrete proposal that would address the problem; that is s. 50 of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, 1st sess., 39th Parl., 2006, a bill of this session of Parliament that received First Reading, April 27, 2006. Section 50 of Bill C-7 provides that s. 187 of the National Defence Act will be replaced by the following:
|
187. At any time after a charge has been preferred but before the commencement of the trial, any question, matter or objection in respect of a charge may, on application, be heard and determined by any military judge or, if the court martial has been convened, the judge assigned to preside at the court martial.
|
|
187. À tout moment après le prononcé d’une mise en accusation et avant l’ouverture du procès de l’accusé, tout juge militaire ou, si la cour martiale a déjà été convoquée, le juge militaire la présidant peut, sur demande, juger toute question ou objection à l’égard de l’ accusation. |
[20] If s. 50 of Bill C-7 is enacted, any military judge would be able to hear an application by the prosecution for the sealing of the charge or other issues of confidentiality. So, with the enactment of this provision, the problem before me would disappear. Unfortunately that has not yet happened and the problem of how to deal with the issue of a classified charge is directly before me. In the absence of a legislative process by which preliminary matters of confidentiality can be dealt with prior to the assignment of a military judge, should the CMJ be required to assign a military judge?
5. Issue #1: Is there a legal duty to assign a military judge and to issue the convening order?
[21] With this background, I turn to the first issue. On the facts of this case, what is the public legal duty of each of the CMJ and the Administrator?
5.1 Role of the Administrator
[22] As described above, the Administrator is required to issue a convening order when presented with a charge (s. 187), with the information set out in s. 111.02(2)(c) of the QR&Os. However, in this case, the Administrator was missing the name of the military judge, since the CMJ refused to appoint one to the case. Further, the fact that the charge was classified prevented the inclusion of the name, service number and rank in the convening order. In short, the Administrator simply did not have sufficient information to complete a convening order that was in compliance with the QR&Os.
[23] The parties agree that the role of the Administrator in this matter is, in effect, defined by the CMJ. It is self-evident that a convening order cannot issue without the name of the military judge. So long as the CMJ refuses to assign a military judge to the court martial, the Administrator is unable to fulfil her statutory duty to issue a convening order that would be in compliance with s. 111.02(2) of the QR&Os. Thus, the application for mandamus against the Administrator turns on the refusal of the CMJ to name a military judge.
5.2 Submissions and Proposal of the DMP
[24] The DMP explained why a classified charge sheet was submitted for the Accused through the affidavit of Major Jean-Bruno Cloutier. The relevant portion of his explanation is as follows:
The classification and designation of information within the Canadian Forces is governed by National Defence Security Instruction number 27 [“NDSI 27”] . . . . This instruction provides direction to members of the Canadian Forces in assigning the appropriate security classification or designation to departmental information…
More specific direction regarding Departmental policy for protection of information pertaining to JTF 2 is provided by NDHQ instruction DCDS 05/1993, Security and Public Affairs Policy – Joint Task Force Two [“DCDS 05/1993”]. . . . It provides that the identity of Canadian Forces personnel who – like the Accused and the complainant – are posted to positions within JTF 2 carries the security designation of “PROTECTED C”. As such, the name, address and specific employment of these persons are not to be publicly associated with JTF 2. DCDS 05/1993 also provides that the movements or deployments of unit personnel for a particular operation are to be classified “SECRET” or “CONFIDENTIAL”.
[25] The DMP characterizes DCDS 05/1993 as a “Directive” and as “Instructions”. He concedes that DCDS 05/1993 is not a regulation. However, he points out that members of the Armed Forces must observe and enforce all instructions and orders. (See, for example, s. 4.02, QR&Os that requires officers to observe and enforce all orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer’s duties.) This is an important consideration. As members of Canada’s Armed Forces, the DMP, the CMJ and the Administrator are bound to observe DCDS 05/1993.
[26] In the written and oral submissions, the DMP described a process that, in his view, would allow for the court martial to proceed:
Indeed, the straightforward, practical and lawful solution to address the legitimate concern raised by the CMJ with respect to the classified information contained in a charge sheet can be protected would be for her to assign a military judge to permit the CMA to convene a court martial. This military judge would then have jurisdiction to determine the DMP’s preliminary application brought pursuant to s. 180 of the National Defence Act to protect the information in issue from public disclosure. In this manner, a full and frank debate could be held with respect to this issue before the military judge who will then apply the “Dagenais/Mentuck” approach in determining whether or not to grant the request of the prosecution.
[27] I do not dispute that, once assigned, a military judge would have jurisdiction to consider an application for confidentiality (s. 180, s. 187, National Defence Act). However, the question before me arises prior to the assignment of the military judge. What is obvious is that there is no possibility, within the ambit of the National Defence Act or its regulations, of dealing judicially with confidentiality matters prior to the assignment of a judge. Until that time, there is no court. The question is not whether the court martial judge can consider these matters; he or she can. Rather, the relevant question is: can the Administrator and the CMJ take the steps to convene a court martial without judicial consideration of whether certain information (the name, service number and rank of the Accused) may be withheld at that stage?
[28] In responding to the DMP’s request for a convening order, both the Administrator and the CMJ expressed the view that there is a presumption of openness of military judicial proceedings, as has been established for civil proceedings (R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442 at 472-474; and Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332 at 345-347)). In particular, the CMJ, in an explanatory memo dated September 29, 2005, stressed the sections of these cases that set out that the presumption of openness applies at every stage of a proceeding, including the pre-trial stage.
[29] The DMP does not dispute that the jurisprudence establishes a constitutionally-protected right to an open court. However, he submits that the Supreme Court has recognized that there will be situations where derogation from the open court principle will be allowed. This, he submits is one of those situations. The CMJ, on the other hand, argues that, while derogations will be allowed, such determinations must be done by a court and not by the prosecutor.
5.3 Analysis
[30] In these applications, we are dealing with a preliminary step of judicial proceedings, that being the preferring of the charge sheet. Criminal proceedings, outside the military justice system, are commonly instituted by the laying of an information before a justice (or provincial judge). A sealing order could be made upon application by the prosecutor when the information is sworn and laid before the justice or when an indictment is preferred. The decision that an information or indictment is to be kept confidential would not be made by the prosecutor. Even though further motions related to confidentiality could subsequently be dealt with by the trial judge, a justice or provincial judge would still consider the need for confidentiality at this preliminary stage. The prosecutor would bring the application for confidentiality and the court would consider all relevant matters. After a judicial balancing of all factors, the court could conclude that public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy and deny the motion. Or, the prosecution could persuade the court that the proper administration of justice requires the maintenance of secrecy. Through the independent, judicial decision-making process, the presumption of openness is respected.
[31] The effect of following the process suggested by the DMP is that the decision to seal the equivalent of the information or indictment is being made solely by the DMP or prosecutor. I question whether such a process is either valid at law or necessary.
[32] The CMJ argues that the principles, as most recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario, 2005 SCC 41, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188 at 191-192, answer the question before me:
Competing claims related to court proceedings necessarily involve an exercise in judicial discretion. It is now well established that court proceedings are presumptively "open" in Canada. Public access will be barred only when the appropriate court, in the exercise of its discretion, concludes that disclosure would subvert the ends of justice or unduly impair its proper administration.
This criterion has come to be known as the Dagenais/Mentuck test, after the decisions of this Court in which the governing principles were established and refined. The issue in this case is whether that test, developed in the context of publication bans at the time of trial, applies as well at the pre-charge or "investigative stage" of criminal proceedings. More particularly, whether it applies to "sealing orders" concerning search warrants and the informations upon which their issuance was judicially authorized.
. . .
I would dismiss the appeal. In my view, the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies to all discretionary court orders that limit freedom of expression and freedom of the press in relation to legal proceedings. Any other conclusion appears to me inconsistent with an unbroken line of authority in this Court over the past two decades. And it would tend to undermine the open court principle inextricably incorporated into the core values of s. 2(b) of the Charter. [Emphasis in original]
[33] There can be no doubt of the state of the law on the issue. The presumption of openness applies at every stage of a proceeding and the weighing of public interest considerations for derogating from the rule must be done by a court. Only a court may deny access to court proceedings or its documents.
[34] This interpretation of the jurisprudence is unassailable, at least where the prosecutor has access to a court to consider the question. That, of course, is the difference in the case before me. All of the cases where the principle of openness of the court process was affirmed involved situations where a standing court was available, at the preliminary stage, to hear a motion on confidentiality. Does the absence of a standing court in the military context permit the prosecutor to “undermine the open court principle inextricably incorporated into the core values of s. 2(b) of the Charter”?
[35] The DMP argues that the jurisprudence establishes that there are exceptions to the presumption and that the test described as the Dagenais/Mentuck test is to be applied in a flexible and contextual manner (Toronto Star, above at 192). I agree completely. However, the problem is that, by proceeding as suggested by the DMP, there is no opportunity for a court to be flexible at the preliminary stage; the matter is dealt with unilaterally by the DMP and, in effect, “rubber stamped” by the CMJ and the Administrator.
[36] The military justice system is intended to provide a code for the administration of justice for Canada’s Armed Forces. Obviously, there will be unique aspects to a prosecution of a member of the Armed Forces. However, neither Parliament nor internal policies indicate that the Armed Forces should not adopt the presumption of openness. For example, paragraph 1 of the Chief Military Judge, Policy on Publication of Court Martial Information, 17 September 2004 states that:
An essential characteristic of the Canadian military justice system, which is shared with the Canadian criminal justice system, is its openness and accessibility to the public. The openness and accessibility of court proceedings is essential because it increases public confidence in, and understanding of, the administration of justice.
[37] One also need only look to the proposed amendments to s. 187 of the National Defence Act to see that the current government also acknowledges that preliminary motions on confidentiality require the attention of a military judge.
[38] If the CMJ issues the convening order as demanded by the DMP, the court martial will proceed without a preliminary consideration of the legality of sealing the charge, presumably with an early motion by the prosecution, upon commencement of the trial, regarding confidentiality and in camera sessions. Perhaps, as implied by the DMP, the confidentiality considerations will be the same at the court martial as they would be on a preliminary motion. I do not know if this is correct. However, Justice Fish, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court in Toronto Star, above at 192, identified that a preliminary step may involve different considerations of confidentiality than will the trial of a matter:
A serious risk to the administration of justice at the investigative stage, for example, will often involve considerations that have become irrelevant by the time of trial. On the other hand, the perceived risk may be more difficult to demonstrate in a concrete manner at that early stage. Where a sealing order is at that stage solicited for a brief period only, this factor alone may well invite caution in opting for full and immediate disclosure.
The same may be true here; we simply do not know.
[39] What is evident is that, at this preliminary stage, all of the parties involved are subject to DCDS 05/1993. That is, the DMP, the Administrator and the CMJ are bound to keep confidential certain information contained in the charge; they must obey military orders. This, in my view, creates a very real apprehension that none of the three decision-makers can bring an unfettered discretion to the question of disclosure at this preliminary stage. (As an aside, I assume that a military judge assigned to the court martial would not be bound to follow such orders where they conflict with his or her judicial duties.) Without a separate, independent review of the question of secrecy at this stage, how can we be satisfied that the need for confidentiality outweighs the need for full and immediate disclosure?
[40] Given the nature of the charges and the possible impact on the Accused and others who may have an interest in the proceedings, I see no reason why the same constitutional protections afforded at the preliminary stages of criminal proceedings should not apply to all stages of proceedings involving the Accused. In my view, it offends the underlying principles for the DMP to unilaterally seal the charge or for the CMJ to accept this decision of the DMP.
5.4 Conclusion
[41] I am reluctant to conclude that the duty of the CMJ includes an obligation that, in effect, the presumption of openness established by the Supreme Court may be ignored at this stage of the proceedings.
[42] In sum, it offends the presumption of openness of court proceedings to allow the court martial to proceed without a full consideration of the issuance of a classified convening order. In the face of the gap or void, it is not appropriate or in keeping with principles established in Canadian law, for any of the CMJ, the DMP or this Court (on this application) to fill the gap. In the words of Justice Fish, such steps “would tend to undermine the open court principle inextricably incorporated into the core values of s. 2(b) of the Charter” (Toronto Star, above at 192).
[43] For these reasons, I conclude that the CMJ had no duty to assign a military judge to preside at the court martial. Indeed, she could not.
6. Issue #2: Are there adequate alternative remedies?
[44] I turn now to my second concern, that being whether the DMP has persuaded me that no effective alternative remedy exists. Even if I am wrong and the CMJ did have a duty to assign a military judge, the Applicant must satisfy me that there are no other viable alternatives.
[45] Mandamus is, in my view, a draconian measure. By issuing the requested writ, this Court would be interfering in the administration of military justice. I need to be convinced that all other avenues of addressing this problem have been or would be unsuccessful. In my view, there are two alternative remedies that may be available to the DMP. The first would be to attempt to obtain an administrative accommodation prior to the preferring of the charge. The second would be to request the required orders of confidentiality pursuant to s. 37 or s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5. Let me review each of these.
6.1 Administrative alternatives
[46] I should make it very clear that this is not about the wisdom of Canada’s military in seeking to classify certain information. Specifically, I do not question the value of the policy reflected in DCDS 05/1993. Further, I accept that it is necessary, for an effective military force, that all members be bound by instructions and orders. It is also uncontested that the DMP wishes to proceed with the charges against the accused as a way of ensuring that “a prosecution relating to serious charges can proceed”.
[47] The DMP submits that the Administrator and the CMJ are making it “impossible to ever convene a court martial with respect to an active member of JTF 2, even – as in the case at bar – in the face of serious charges”. This argument, in my view, shifts the burden completely to the military judicial system to accommodate instructions and orders which may be incompatible to the exercise of its judicial functions.
[48] While it was not fully argued before me, I wonder whether the DMP has done everything possible to solve this issue prior to preferring the classified charge. There may be administrative steps that could avoid the problem of a classified charge sheet, thereby providing an effective alternative remedy. The DMP did not present any evidence that any other options had been explored. During cross-examination on his affidavit, Major Jean-Bruno Cloutier was asked what other options were considered. He was prevented from answering the questions by the DMP’s counsel.
[49] As an example, in these unusual circumstances, would it be possible to obtain some accommodation on the application of DCDS 05/1993? I expect that instructions and orders can and do change to meet individual circumstances. Indeed, even within DCDS 05/1993, there are provisions that provide “guidance” on the disposition of requests for the release of information.
[50] In written submissions, the Administrator suggested that the Accused could be posted out of JTF 2 or attached to another unit pending his trial. The new charge sheet would not identify JTF 2, thereby avoiding the application of DCDS 05/1993.
[51] I certainly have no evidence before me upon which I could assess the viability of either of these administrative options. However, given the burden borne by the DMP on these applications, I should be satisfied that such alternatives have been considered and that these alternatives did not or could not solve the problem.
6.2 Use of provisions of the Canada Evidence Act
[52] The CMJ submits that the DMP could proceed under either s. 37 or s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. These provisions are set out in Appendix A to these reasons. Under either of these provisions, the CMJ argues, a judge of the Federal Court could consider whether the information in the charge sheet should or should not be disclosed.
[53] The position of the DMP is that neither s. 37 nor s. 38 provides a viable option because, on their face, the schemes do not apply. Section 37 does not apply because it is inapplicable to matters of national defence. And, s. 38 does not apply because it is available only once a court martial is convened. Having read and heard the arguments of the DMP, I am not persuaded that these provisions of the Canada Evidence Act do not provide a means of filling the gap.
[54] I will begin my analysis with an overview of s. 37 and s. 38. I will then consider whether there is an arguable case that either or both of s. 37 and s. 38 could be used to determine the issue of confidentiality of the charge. I will address the arguments presented by the parties as part of this analysis.
6.2.1 Protection of Information under the Canada Evidence Act
[55] What purpose do s. 37 and s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act serve? In general terms, that question was answered by the comments of Chief Justice MacLachlin in Babcock v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 S.C.C. 57, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3 at 15:
Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act deal with objections to the disclosure of protected information held by the federal government. Section 37 relates to all claims for Crown privilege, except Cabinet confidences, or confidences of the Queen's Privy Council; s. 38 pertains to objections related to international relations or national defence; and s. 39 deals with Cabinet confidences. Under ss. 37 and 38, a judge balances the competing public interests in protection and disclosure of information.
[56] The purpose of s. 38, in particular, is to protect information where disclosure could be injurious to national defence or international relations. Section 38 provides for judicial oversight of government claims of confidentiality for such information.
[57] On the basis of this brief overview, it appears that s. 37 and s. 38 have been designed to solve the very problem before me. The protected information (the classified charge sheet) is held by the federal government (in this case, members of the Armed Forces). A judge of the Federal Court would balance the competing public interests in protection and disclosure of the information. In this way, the problem that I identified above is addressed. The job of balancing interests is taken out of the hands of the three persons (the DMP, the Administrator and the CMJ) who are unable to do so.
[58] With respect to the availability of s. 37 or s. 38 and the task of this Court, the DMP stated the following:
. . . you have to find, as a conclusion, that it is a viable alternative; and for that, you have to look at Section 37 and say: “Well, on its face, is this a section that could provide the relief?”
And you would have to do the same analysis with Section 38: “On its face, is this a section that would apply and provide viable relief?”
. . . .
In any event, you have to do it now, because delaying it to another, or passing the job to somebody else, or to another of your [brethren] at the Federal Court on Section 38, or on another –
. . .
[59] The problem with this submission is that the DMP is failing to recognize that he bears the burden of demonstrating that s. 37 or s. 38 is not a viable alternative. It is not sufficient to raise a doubt and then place the onus on me to guarantee that a particular provision will provide the remedy.
6.2.2 Application of s. 38
[60] Since s. 38 is the most obviously relevant provision, I will begin there. Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act protects information where release of that information would be injurious to national defence, security and international relations. The section is triggered where information that may be disclosed is “sensitive information” or “potentially injurious information” as within the definition of s. 38. Clearly, I do not have an evidentiary record upon which to make a final determination on that question. Therefore, for purposes of this application, I assume that the name, service number and rank of the Accused would constitute “sensitive information” or “potentially injurious information”.
[61] The question is whether s. 38 is available to the DMP. That is, could the DMP use the procedures set out in s. 38 to seek a decision from a judge of the Federal Court on whether the contents of the charge should or should not be disclosed?
[62] The DMP presents one main argument against the use of s. 38. In his view, s. 38 can only apply once there is a proceeding; until the court martial is convened there is no “proceeding”. A review of the words of s. 38 does not, in my view, support this narrow interpretation.
[63] The word “proceeding” is defined in s. 38 as “a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information”. Under this definition, a court martial is a proceeding only upon the issuance of a convening order. I agree with the DMP that “[f]or the scheme of Section 38 to be triggered, one needs a proceeding”.
[64] Section 38.01 commences the procedures set out in the balance of s. 38. It provides that the process is triggered when a “participant who, in connection with a proceeding, is required to disclose, or expects to disclose or cause the disclosure of, information that the participant believes is sensitive information or potentially injurious information . . .” [emphasis added]. Is that not exactly what the DMP faces? In preferring the charge against the Accused, the DMP is taking the first step in a continuum leading to a court martial. In other words, he is taking a step “in connection with” a court martial. At this preliminary stage, the DMP is required to disclose or expects to disclose or cause the disclosure of classified military information. Rationally, for purposes of the scheme of s. 38, a step so integral to the court martial must be “in connection with” that proceeding.
[65] In support of a narrow interpretation of s. 38, counsel for the DMP also presented a practical problem with the use of s. 38, based on his personal experience. He described the process as having three steps. Under Section 38.01, notice must be provided to the Attorney General. Second, under Section 38.03, the Attorney General must decide whether to authorize or refuse the disclosure. Third, once the Attorney General has decided, the Court can then conduct a de novo review of the issue and make its own determination.
[66] In the experience of counsel for the DMP:
. . . those who within the Department of Justice exercise this delegated authority under 38.03, to decide whether something should be authorized or not, have a very . . . a restrictive and strict reading of Section 38, and they will not entertain a Notice for something for which there is no proceeding as defined by Section 38.
[67] I have considerable difficulty with relying on these experiences as a reason for concluding that s. 38 is not a viable alternative. First, I have no idea of the nature of the requests that were being made to the Attorney General. One thing that is self-evident is that considerations under these provisions of the Canada Evidence Act must be made on a case-by-case basis. The experiences described by counsel for the DMP may have been in very different situations. Second, I question the precedential value of a decision of a lawyer within the Attorney General’s office.
[68] In sum, having reviewed the words of s. 38 and considered the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility that the requirements to bring an application for confidentiality under s. 38 could be met. The DMP should explore that possibility.
6.2.3 Application of s. 37
[69] The CMJ submits that, if s. 38 is not applicable, an application pursuant to s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act would be available to protect this information on the grounds of a “specified public interest”. The DMP disagrees, arguing that the inclusion of the words “Subject to sections 38 to 38.16” at the beginning of s. 37 precludes an application where the subject matter is, as here, a matter of national defence, security and international relations. While I do not agree with that particular argument against the use of s. 37, I conclude that there may be concerns with its use on the facts before me.
[70] The words “subject to” do not mean, in my view, that there is no possibility of invoking s. 37. Obviously, if s. 38 applies in these circumstances, s. 37 does not. However, if the requirements for s. 38 are not met, I see no reason why the broader public interest considerations of s. 37 could not be used (subject to the concern expressed below) to address the disclosure of information related to national defence, security and international relations.
[71] In spite of this interpretation of the words “subject to”, there may be some difficulty in using s. 37 in the particular circumstances before me. Section 37(1) provides that “a Minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other official may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information”. I am not entirely certain that these words would apply to the potential disclosure of the charge sheet in a proceeding that has not yet been identified. These words contrast with the words “in connection with a proceeding” used in s. 38. This raises a significant doubt and I conclude, for purposes of the test for mandamus, that s. 37 is not an “effective alternative remedy”.
6.3 Conclusion
[72] The Applicant bears the burden of persuading me that there are no alternatives to the remedy of mandamus. In my view, the DMP has failed to meet this burden. In this case, there are at least two alternatives that have not been properly assessed. This is, of course, in addition to the apparently unacceptable option of not proceeding with the charges against the accused. At the end of the day, it may be that neither a relaxation of DCDS 05/1993 nor an application under the Canada Evidence Act is successful. However, the DMP, in my view, must either pursue those avenues or provide more compelling reasons for rejecting the alternatives before coming to the Court for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Accordingly, the equitable remedy of mandamus is not available to the DMP.
7. Summary
[73] Having considered all of the facts and submissions of these applications, I have determined that the application for a writ of mandamus should be dismissed. In summary form, my reasons for rejecting the request are as follows:
- The well-established presumption of openness of court proceedings requires that there be a judicial weighing of the competing public interests of non-disclosure or sealing of the classified charge prior to the convening of a court martial. Since courts martial only exist once convened, there is no authority to appoint a military judge to consider the preliminary sealing of the charge. Prior to the convening of a court martial, both the CMJ and the DMP are bound by military orders and are, accordingly, unable to carry out an independent assessment of the issue of non-disclosure. In the face of the gap or void and absent a judicial review of the need for non-disclosure, it is not appropriate or in keeping with principles established in Canadian law for the CMJ to assign a military judge to the court martial. Thus, at this stage, there is no public legal duty, for the CMJ to assign a military judge to preside at the Standing Court Martial of the Accused. No writ of mandamus should issue against the CMJ.
- Without the assignment of a military judge, the Administrator has no authority or public legal duty to issue a convening order. No writ of mandamus should issue against the Administrator.
- Even if I am wrong on the public legal duty of the CMJ, the DMP has not persuaded this Court that there are no other adequate remedies. He has not presented evidence that other options (such as, reassignment of the Accused to another military unit or review of the instructions contained in DCDS 05/1993) have been explored or why they are unavailable. Further, s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act appears, on its face, to provide a procedure for addressing the preliminary issue of non-disclosure.
[74] No costs were sought by either of the Respondents. None will be awarded.
[75] A copy of these reasons and order will be placed on each of the relevant Court files.
ORDER
1. The application for an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus that would require the Court Martial Administrator to convene a Standing Court Martial is dismissed.
2. The application for an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus that would require the Chief Military Judge to assign a military judge to a Standing Court Martial is dismissed.
3. Each party will bear its own costs.
“Judith A. Snider”
______ _______________________
Judge
APPENDIX “A”
to the
Reasons for Order and Order dated December 21, 2006
In
THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONS
and
THE COURT MARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR
T-1967-05
AND BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONS
and
THE CHIEF MILITARY JUDGE
T-1968-05
|
Canada Evidence Act,
37. (1) Subject to sections 38 to 38.16, a Minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other official may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying orally or in writing to the court, person or body that the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of a specified public interest.
(1.1) If an objection is made under subsection (1), the court, person or body shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.
(2) If an objection to the disclosure of information is made before a superior court, that court may determine the objection.
(3) If an objection to the disclosure of information is made before a court, person or body other than a superior court, the objection may be determined, on application, by
(a) the Federal Court, in the case of a person or body vested with power to compel production by or under an Act of Parliament if the person or body is not a court established under a law of a province; or
(b) the trial division or trial court of the superior court of the province within which the court, person or body exercises its jurisdiction, in any other case.
(4) An application under subsection (3) shall be made within 10 days after the objection is made or within any further or lesser time that the court having jurisdiction to hear the application considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(4.1) Unless the court having jurisdiction to hear the application concludes that the disclosure of the information to which the objection was made under subsection (1) would encroach upon a specified public interest, the court may authorize by order the disclosure of the information.
(5) If the court having jurisdiction to hear the application concludes that the disclosure of the information to which the objection was made under subsection (1) would encroach upon a specified public interest, but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the specified public interest, the court may, by order, after considering both the public interest in disclosure and the form of and conditions to disclosure that are most likely to limit any encroachment upon the specified public interest resulting from disclosure, authorize the disclosure, subject to any conditions that the court considers appropriate, of all of the information, a part or summary of the information, or a written admission of facts relating to the information.
(6) If the court does not authorize disclosure under subsection (4.1) or (5), the court shall, by order, prohibit disclosure of the information.
(6.1) The court may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the court, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base its decision on that evidence.
(7) An order of the court that authorizes disclosure does not take effect until the time provided or granted to appeal the order, or a judgment of an appeal court that confirms the order, has expired, or no further appeal from a judgment that confirms the order is available.
(8) A person who wishes to introduce into evidence material the disclosure of which is authorized under subsection (5), but who may not be able to do so by reason of the rules of admissibility that apply before the court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, may request from the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) or (3) an order permitting the introduction into evidence of the material in a form or subject to any conditions fixed by that court, as long as that form and those conditions comply with the order made under subsection (5)
.
(9) For the purpose of subsection (8), the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) or (3) shall consider all the factors that would be relevant for a determination of admissibility before the court, person or body.
37.1 (1) An appeal lies from a determination under any of subsections 37(4.1) to (6)
(a) to the Federal Court of Appeal from a determination of the Federal Court; or
(b) to the court of appeal of a province from a determination of a trial division or trial court of a superior court of the province.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be brought within 10 days after the date of the determination appealed from or within any further time that the court having jurisdiction to hear the appeal considers appropriate in the circumstances.
37.2 Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament,
(a) an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment made under subsection 37.1(1) shall be made within 10 days after the date of the judgment appealed from or within any further time that the court having jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal considers appropriate in the circumstances; and
(b) if leave to appeal is granted, the appeal shall be brought in the manner set out in subsection 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act but within the time specified by the court that grants leave.
37.21 [Repealed, 2004, c. 12, s. 18]
37.3 (1) A judge presiding at a criminal trial or other criminal proceeding may make any order that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial, as long as that order complies with the terms of any order made under any of subsections 37(4.1) to (6) in relation to that trial or proceeding or any judgment made on appeal of an order made under any of those subsections.
(2) The orders that may be made under subsection (1) include, but are not limited to, the following orders:
(a) an order dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information, or permitting the indictment or information to proceed only in respect of a lesser or included offence;
(b) an order effecting a stay of the proceedings; and
(c) an order finding against any party on any issue relating to information the disclosure of which is prohibited.
38. The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 38.01 to 38.15.
“judge” means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice to conduct hearings under section 38.04.
“participant” means a person who, in connection with a proceeding, is required to disclose, or expects to disclose or cause the disclosure of, information.
“potentially injurious information” means information of a type that, if it were disclosed to the public, could injure international relations or national defence or national security.
“proceeding” means a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information.
“prosecutor” means an agent of the Attorney General of Canada or of the Attorney General of a province, the Director of Military Prosecutions under the National Defence Act or an individual who acts as a prosecutor in a proceeding.
“sensitive information” means information relating to international relations or national defence or national security that is in the possession of the Government of Canada, whether originating from inside or outside Canada, and is of a type that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard.
38.01 (1) Every participant who, in connection with a proceeding, is required to disclose, or expects to disclose or cause the disclosure of, information that the participant believes is sensitive information or potentially injurious information shall, as soon as possible, notify the Attorney General of Canada in writing of the possibility of the disclosure, and of the nature, date and place of the proceeding.
(2) Every participant who believes that sensitive information or potentially injurious information is about to be disclosed, whether by the participant or another person, in the course of a proceeding shall raise the matter with the person presiding at the proceeding and notify the Attorney General of Canada in writing of the matter as soon as possible, whether or not notice has been given under subsection (1). In such circumstances, the person presiding at the proceeding shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.
(3) An official, other than a participant, who believes that sensitive information or potentially injurious information may be disclosed in connection with a proceeding may notify the Attorney General of Canada in writing of the possibility of the disclosure, and of the nature, date and place of the proceeding.
(4) An official, other than a participant, who believes that sensitive information or potentially injurious information is about to be disclosed in the course of a proceeding may raise the matter with the person presiding at the proceeding. If the official raises the matter, he or she shall notify the Attorney General of Canada in writing of the matter as soon as possible, whether or not notice has been given under subsection (3), and the person presiding at the proceeding shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.
(5) In the case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, notice under any of subsections (1) to (4) shall be given to both the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence.
(6) This section does not apply when
(a) the information is disclosed by a person to their solicitor in connection with a proceeding, if the information is relevant to that proceeding;
(b) the information is disclosed to enable the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of National Defence, a judge or a court hearing an appeal from, or a review of, an order of the judge to discharge their responsibilities under section 38, this section and sections 38.02 to 38.13, 38.15 and 38.16;
(c) disclosure of the information is authorized by the government institution in which or for which the information was produced or, if the information was not produced in or for a government institution, the government institution in which it was first received; or
(d) the information is disclosed to an entity and, where applicable, for a purpose listed in the schedule.
(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a participant if a government institution referred to in paragraph (6)(c) advises the participant that it is not necessary, in order to prevent disclosure of the information referred to in that paragraph, to give notice to the Attorney General of Canada under subsection (1) or to raise the matter with the person presiding under subsection (2).
(8) The Governor in Council may, by order, add to or delete from the schedule a reference to any entity or purpose, or amend such a reference.
38.02 (1) Subject to subsection 38.01(6), no person shall disclose in connection with a proceeding
(a) information about which notice is given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4);
(b) the fact that notice is given to the Attorney General of Canada under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4), or to the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence under subsection 38.01(5);
(c) the fact that an application is made to the Federal Court under section 38.04 or that an appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) in connection with the application is instituted; or
(d) the fact that an agreement is entered into under section 38.031 or subsection 38.04(6).
(1.1) When an entity listed in the schedule, for any purpose listed there in relation to that entity, makes a decision or order that would result in the disclosure of sensitive information or potentially injurious information, the entity shall not disclose the information or cause it to be disclosed until notice of intention to disclose the information has been given to the Attorney General of Canada and a period of 10 days has elapsed after notice was given.
(2) Disclosure of the information or the facts referred to in subsection (1) is not prohibited if
(a) the Attorney General of Canada authorizes the disclosure in writing under section 38.03 or by agreement under section 38.031 or subsection 38.04(6); or
(b) a judge authorizes the disclosure under subsection 38.06(1) or (2) or a court hearing an appeal from, or a review of, the order of the judge authorizes the disclosure, and either the time provided to appeal the order or judgment has expired or no further appeal is available.
38.03 (1) The Attorney General of Canada may, at any time and subject to any conditions that he or she considers appropriate, authorize the disclosure of all or part of the information and facts the disclosure of which is prohibited under subsection 38.02(1).
(2) In the case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Attorney General of Canada may authorize disclosure only with the agreement of the Minister of National Defence.
(3) The Attorney General of Canada shall, within 10 days after the day on which he or she first receives a notice about information under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4), notify in writing every person who provided notice under section 38.01 about that information of his or her decision with respect to disclosure of the information.
38.031 (1) The Attorney General of Canada and a person who has given notice under subsection 38.01(1) or (2) and is not required to disclose information but wishes, in connection with a proceeding, to disclose any facts referred to in paragraphs 38.02(1)(b) to (d) or information about which he or she gave the notice, or to cause that disclosure, may, before the person applies to the Federal Court under paragraph 38.04(2)(c), enter into an agreement that permits the disclosure of part of the facts or information or disclosure of the facts or information subject to conditions.
(2) If an agreement is entered into under subsection (1), the person may not apply to the Federal Court under paragraph 38.04(2)(c) with respect to the information about which he or she gave notice to the Attorney General of Canada under subsection 38.01(1) or (2).
38.04 (1) The Attorney General of Canada may, at any time and in any circumstances, apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to the disclosure of information about which notice was given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4).
(2) If, with respect to information about which notice was given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4), the Attorney General of Canada does not provide notice of a decision in accordance with subsection 38.03(3) or, other than by an agreement under section 38.031, authorizes the disclosure of only part of the information or disclosure subject to any conditions,
(a) the Attorney General of Canada shall apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to disclosure of the information if a person who gave notice under subsection 38.01(1) or (2) is a witness;
(b) a person, other than a witness, who is required to disclose information in connection with a proceeding shall apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to disclosure of the information; and
(c) a person who is not required to disclose information in connection with a proceeding but who wishes to disclose it or to cause its disclosure may apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to disclosure of the information.
(3) A person who applies to the Federal Court under paragraph (2)(b) or (c) shall provide notice of the application to the Attorney General of Canada.
(4) An application under this section is confidential. Subject to section 38.12, the Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service may take any measure that he or she considers appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the application and the information to which it relates.
(5) As soon as the Federal Court is seized of an application under this section, the judge
(a) shall hear the representations of the Attorney General of Canada and, in the case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence, concerning the identity of all parties or witnesses whose interests may be affected by either the prohibition of disclosure or the conditions to which disclosure is subject, and concerning the persons who should be given notice of any hearing of the matter;
(b) shall decide whether it is necessary to hold any hearing of the matter;
(c) if he or she decides that a hearing should be held, shall
(i) determine who should be given notice of the hearing,
(ii) order the Attorney General of Canada to notify those persons, and
(iii) determine the content and form of the notice; and
(d) if he or she considers it appropriate in the circumstances, may give any person the opportunity to make representations.
(6) After the Federal Court is seized of an application made under paragraph (2)(c) or, in the case of an appeal from, or a review of, an order of the judge made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) in connection with that application, before the appeal or review is disposed of,
(a) the Attorney General of Canada and the person who made the application may enter into an agreement that permits the disclosure of part of the facts referred to in paragraphs 38.02(1)(b) to (d) or part of the information or disclosure of the facts or information subject to conditions; and
(b) if an agreement is entered into, the Court's consideration of the application or any hearing, review or appeal shall be terminated.
(7) Subject to subsection (6), after the Federal Court is seized of an application made under this section or, in the case of an appeal from, or a review of, an order of the judge made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3), before the appeal or review is disposed of, if the Attorney General of Canada authorizes the disclosure of all or part of the information or withdraws conditions to which the disclosure is subject, the Court's consideration of the application or any hearing, appeal or review shall be terminated in relation to that information, to the extent of the authorization or the withdrawal.
38.05 If he or she receives notice of a hearing under paragraph 38.04(5)(c), a person presiding or designated to preside at the proceeding to which the information relates or, if no person is designated, the person who has the authority to designate a person to preside may, within 10 days after the day on which he or she receives the notice, provide the judge with a report concerning any matter relating to the proceeding that the person considers may be of assistance to the judge.
38.06 (1) Unless the judge concludes that the disclosure of the information would be injurious to international relations or national defence or national security, the judge may, by order, authorize the disclosure of the information.
(2) If the judge concludes that the disclosure of the information would be injurious to international relations or national defence or national security but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the public interest in non-disclosure, the judge may by order, after considering both the public interest in disclosure and the form of and conditions to disclosure that are most likely to limit any injury to international relations or national defence or national security resulting from disclosure, authorize the disclosure, subject to any conditions that the judge considers appropriate, of all of the information, a part or summary of the information, or a written admission of facts relating to the information.
(3) If the judge does not authorize disclosure under subsection (1) or (2), the judge shall, by order, confirm the prohibition of disclosure.
(3.1) The judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base his or her decision on that evidence.
(4) A person who wishes to introduce into evidence material the disclosure of which is authorized under subsection (2) but who may not be able to do so in a proceeding by reason of the rules of admissibility that apply in the proceeding may request from a judge an order permitting the introduction into evidence of the material in a form or subject to any conditions fixed by that judge, as long as that form and those conditions comply with the order made under subsection (2).
(5) For the purpose of subsection (4), the judge shall consider all the factors that would be relevant for a determination of admissibility in the proceeding.
38.07 The judge may order the Attorney General of Canada to give notice of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) to any person who, in the opinion of the judge, should be notified.
38.08 If the judge determines that a party to the proceeding whose interests are adversely affected by an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) was not given the opportunity to make representations under paragraph 38.04(5)(d), the judge shall refer the order to the Federal Court of Appeal for review.
38.09 (1) An order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.
(2) An appeal shall be brought within 10 days after the day on which the order is made or within any further time that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances.
38.1 Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament,
(a) an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment made on appeal shall be made within 10 days after the day on which the judgment appealed from is made or within any further time that the Supreme Court of Canada considers appropriate in the circumstances; and
(b) if leave to appeal is granted, the appeal shall be brought in the manner set out in subsection 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act but within the time specified by the Supreme Court of Canada.
38.11 (1) A hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or an appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) shall be heard in private and, at the request of either the Attorney General of Canada or, in the case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence, shall be heard in the National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act.
(2) The judge conducting a hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or the court hearing an appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) may give any person who makes representations under paragraph 38.04(5)(d), and shall give the Attorney General of Canada and, in the case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence, the opportunity to make representations ex parte.
38.12 (1) The judge conducting a hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or the court hearing an appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) may make any order that the judge or the court considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the confidentiality of the information to which the hearing, appeal or review relates.
(2) The court records relating to the hearing, appeal or review are confidential. The judge or the court may order that the records be sealed and kept in a location to which the public has no access.
38.13 (1) The Attorney General of Canada may personally issue a certificate that prohibits the disclosure of information in connection with a proceeding for the purpose of protecting information obtained in confidence from, or in relation to, a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act or for the purpose of protecting national defence or national security. The certificate may only be issued after an order or decision that would result in the disclosure of the information to be subject to the certificate has been made under this or any other Act of Parliament.
(2) In the case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Attorney General of Canada may issue the certificate only with the agreement, given personally, of the Minister of National Defence.
(3) The Attorney General of Canada shall cause a copy of the certificate to be served on
(a) the person presiding or designated to preside at the proceeding to which the information relates or, if no person is designated, the person who has the authority to designate a person to preside;
(b) every party to the proceeding;
(c) every person who gives notice under section 38.01 in connection with the proceeding;
(d) every person who, in connection with the proceeding, may disclose, is required to disclose or may cause the disclosure of the information about which the Attorney General of Canada has received notice under section 38.01;
(e) every party to a hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or to an appeal of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) in relation to the information;
(f) the judge who conducts a hearing under subsection 38.04(5) and any court that hears an appeal from, or review of, an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) in relation to the information; and
(g) any other person who, in the opinion of the Attorney General of Canada, should be served.
(4) The Attorney General of Canada shall cause a copy of the certificate to be filed
(a) with the person responsible for the records of the proceeding to which the information relates; and
(b) in the Registry of the Federal Court and the registry of any court that hears an appeal from, or review of, an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3).
(5) If the Attorney General of Canada issues a certificate, then, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, disclosure of the information shall be prohibited in accordance with the terms of the certificate.
(6) The Statutory Instruments Act does not apply to a certificate issued under subsection (1).
(7) The Attorney General of Canada shall, without delay after a certificate is issued, cause the certificate to be published in the Canada Gazette.
(8) The certificate and any matters arising out of it are not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with section 38.131.
(9) The certificate expires 15 years after the day on which it is issued and may be reissued.
38.131 (1) A party to the proceeding referred to in section 38.13 may apply to the Federal Court of Appeal for an order varying or cancelling a certificate issued under that section on the grounds referred to in subsection (8) or (9), as the case may be.
(2) The applicant shall give notice of the application to the Attorney General of Canada.
(3) In the case of proceedings under Part III of the National Defence Act, notice under subsection (2) shall be given to both the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence.
(4) Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal Court Act, for the purposes of the application, the Federal Court of Appeal consists of a single judge of that Court.
(5) In considering the application, the judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base a determination made under any of subsections (8) to (10) on that evidence.
(6) Sections 38.11 and 38.12 apply, with any necessary modifications, to an application made under subsection (1).
(7) The judge shall consider the application as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 10 days after the application is made under subsection (1).
(8) If the judge determines that some of the information subject to the certificate does not relate either to information obtained in confidence from, or in relation to, a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act, or to national defence or national security, the judge shall make an order varying the certificate accordingly.
(9) If the judge determines that none of the information subject to the certificate relates to information obtained in confidence from, or in relation to, a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act, or to national defence or national security, the judge shall make an order cancelling the certificate.
(10) If the judge determines that all of the information subject to the certificate relates to information obtained in confidence from, or in relation to, a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act, or to national defence or national security, the judge shall make an order confirming the certificate.
(11) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, a determination of a judge under any of subsections (8) to (10) is final and is not subject to review or appeal by any court.
(12) If a certificate is varied or cancelled under this section, the Attorney General of Canada shall, as soon as possible after the decision of the judge and in a manner that mentions the original publication of the certificate, cause to be published in the Canada Gazette
(a) the certificate as varied under subsection (8); or
(b) a notice of the cancellation of the certificate under subsection (9).
38.14 (1) The person presiding at a criminal proceeding may make any order that he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial, as long as that order complies with the terms of any order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) in relation to that proceeding, any judgment made on appeal from, or review of, the order, or any certificate issued under section 38.13.
(2) The orders that may be made under subsection (1) include, but are not limited to, the following orders:
(a) an order dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information, or permitting the indictment or information to proceed only in respect of a lesser or included offence;
(b) an order effecting a stay of the proceedings; and
(c) an order finding against any party on any issue relating to information the disclosure of which is prohibited.
38.15 (1) If sensitive information or potentially injurious information may be disclosed in connection with a prosecution that is not instituted by the Attorney General of Canada or on his or her behalf, the Attorney General of Canada may issue a fiat and serve the fiat on the prosecutor.
(2) When a fiat is served on a prosecutor, the fiat establishes the exclusive authority of the Attorney General of Canada with respect to the conduct of the prosecution described in the fiat or any related process.
(3) If a prosecution described in the fiat or any related process is conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, the fiat or a copy of the fiat shall be filed with the court in which the prosecution or process is conducted.
(4) The fiat or a copy of the fiat
(a) is conclusive proof that the prosecution described in the fiat or any related process may be conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada; and
(b) is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the Attorney General of Canada.
(5) This section does not apply to a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act.
38.16 The Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary to carry into effect the purposes and provisions of sections 38 to 38.15, including regulations respecting the notices, certificates and the fiat. |
|
Loi sur la Preuve au Canada,
37. (1) Sous réserve des articles 38 à 38.16, tout ministre fédéral ou tout fonctionnaire peut s’opposer à la divulgation de renseignements auprès d’un tribunal, d’un organisme ou d’une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements, en attestant verbalement ou par écrit devant eux que, pour des raisons d’intérêt public déterminées, ces renseignements ne devraient pas être divulgués.
(1.1) En cas d’opposition, le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne veille à ce que les renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, sauf en conformité avec la présente loi.
(2) Si l’opposition est portée devant une cour supérieure, celle-ci peut décider la question.
(3) Si l’opposition est portée devant un tribunal, un organisme ou une personne qui ne constituent pas une cour supérieure, la question peut être décidée, sur demande, par :
a) la Cour fédérale, dans les cas où l'organisme ou la personne investis du pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements sous le régime d'une loi fédérale ne constituent pas un tribunal régi par le droit d'une province;
b) la division ou le tribunal de première instance de la cour supérieure de la province dans le ressort de laquelle le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ont compétence, dans les autres cas.
(4) Le délai dans lequel la demande visée au paragraphe (3) peut être faite est de dix jours suivant l’opposition, mais le tribunal saisi peut modifier ce délai s’il l’estime indiqué dans les circonstances.
(4.1) Le tribunal saisi peut rendre une ordonnance autorisant la divulgation des renseignements qui ont fait l’objet d’une opposition au titre du paragraphe (1), sauf s’il conclut que leur divulgation est préjudiciable au regard des raisons d’intérêt public déterminées.
(5) Si le tribunal saisi conclut que la divulgation des renseignements qui ont fait l’objet d’une opposition au titre du paragraphe (1) est préjudiciable au regard des raisons d’intérêt public déterminées, mais que les raisons d’intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation l’emportent sur les raisons d’intérêt public déterminées, il peut par ordonnance, compte tenu des raisons d’intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation ainsi que de la forme et des conditions de divulgation les plus susceptibles de limiter le préjudice au regard des raisons d’intérêt public déterminées, autoriser, sous réserve des conditions qu’il estime indiquées, la divulgation de tout ou partie des renseignements, d’un résumé de ceux-ci ou d’un aveu écrit des faits qui y sont liés.
(6) Dans les cas où le tribunal n’autorise pas la divulgation au titre des paragraphes (4.1) ou (5), il rend une ordonnance interdisant la divulgation.
(6.1) Le tribunal peut recevoir et admettre en preuve tout élément qu’il estime digne de foi et approprié — même si le droit canadien ne prévoit pas par ailleurs son admissibilité — et peut fonder sa décision sur cet élément.
(7) L’ordonnance de divulgation prend effet après l’expiration du délai prévu ou accordé pour en appeler ou, en cas d’appel, après sa confirmation et l’épuisement des recours en appel.
(8) La personne qui veut faire admettre en preuve ce qui a fait l’objet d’une autorisation de divulgation prévue au paragraphe (5), mais qui ne pourrait peut-être pas le faire à cause des règles d’admissibilité applicables devant le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements, peut demander au tribunal saisi au titre des paragraphes (2) ou (3) de rendre une ordonnance autorisant la production en preuve des renseignements, du résumé ou de l’aveu dans la forme ou aux conditions que celui-ci détermine, pourvu que telle forme ou telles conditions soient conformes à l’ordonnance rendue au titre du paragraphe (5).
(9) Pour l’application du paragraphe (8), le tribunal saisi au titre des paragraphes (2) ou (3) prend en compte tous les facteurs qui seraient pertinents pour statuer sur l’admissibilité en preuve devant le tribunal, l’organisme ou la personne.
37.1 (1) L’appel d’une décision rendue en vertu des paragraphes 37(4.1) à (6) se fait:
a) devant la Cour d’appel fédérale, s’agissant d’une décision de la Cour fédérale;
b) devant la cour d’appel d’une province, s’agissant d’une décision de la division ou du tribunal de première instance d’une cour supérieure d’une province.
(2) Le délai dans lequel l’appel prévu au paragraphe (1) peut être interjeté est de dix jours suivant la date de la décision frappée d’appel, mais le tribunal d’appel peut le proroger s’il l’estime indiqué dans les circonstances.
37.2 Nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale :
a) le délai de demande d’autorisation d’en appeler à la Cour suprême du Canada du jugement rendu au titre du paragraphe 37.1(1) est de dix jours suivant ce jugement, mais le tribunal compétent pour autoriser l’appel peut proroger ce délai s’il l’estime indiqué dans les circonstances;
b) dans le cas où l’autorisation est accordée, l’appel est interjeté conformément au paragraphe 60(1) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, mais le délai qui s’applique est celui que fixe le tribunal ayant autorisé l’appel.
37.21 [Abrogé, 2004, ch. 12, art. 18]
37.3 (1) Le juge qui préside un procès criminel ou une autre instance criminelle peut rendre l’ordonnance qu’elle estime indiquée dans les circonstances en vue de protéger le droit de l’accusé à un procès équitable, pourvu que telle ordonnance soit conforme à une ordonnance rendue au titre de l’un des paragraphes 37(4.1) à (6) relativement à ce procès ou à cette instance ou à la décision en appel portant sur une ordonnance rendue au titre de l’un ou l’autre de ces paragraphes.
(2) L’ordonnance rendue au titre du paragraphe (1) peut notamment :
a) annuler un chef d’accusation d’un acte d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation, ou autoriser l’instruction d’un chef d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation pour une infraction moins grave ou une infraction incluse;
b) ordonner l’arrêt des procédures;
c) être rendue à l’encontre de toute partie sur toute question liée aux renseignements dont la divulgation est interdite.
38. Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et aux articles 38.01 à 38.15.
« instance » Procédure devant un tribunal, un organisme ou une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre la production de renseignements.
« juge » Le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou le juge de ce tribunal désigné par le juge en chef pour statuer sur les questions dont est saisi le tribunal en application de l'article 38.04.
« participant » Personne qui, dans le cadre d’une instance, est tenue de divulguer ou prévoit de divulguer ou de faire divulguer des renseignements.
« poursuivant » Représentant du procureur général du Canada ou du procureur général d’une province, particulier qui agit à titre de poursuivant dans le cadre d’une instance ou le directeur des poursuites militaires, au sens de la Loi sur la défense nationale.
« renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables » Les renseignements qui, s’ils sont divulgués, sont susceptibles de porter préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales.
« renseignements sensibles » Les renseignements, en provenance du Canada ou de l’étranger, qui concernent les affaires internationales ou la défense ou la sécurité nationales, qui se trouvent en la possession du gouvernement du Canada et qui sont du type des renseignements à l’égard desquels celui-ci prend des mesures de protection.
38.01 (1) Tout participant qui, dans le cadre d’une instance, est tenu de divulguer ou prévoit de divulguer ou de faire divulguer des renseignements dont il croit qu’il s’agit de renseignements sensibles ou de renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables est tenu d’aviser par écrit, dès que possible, le procureur général du Canada de la possibilité de divulgation et de préciser dans l’avis la nature, la date et le lieu de l’instance.
(2) Tout participant qui croit que des renseignements sensibles ou des renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables sont sur le point d’être divulgués par lui ou par une autre personne au cours d’une instance est tenu de soulever la question devant la personne qui préside l’instance et d’aviser par écrit le procureur général du Canada de la question dès que possible, que ces renseignements aient fait ou non l’objet de l’avis prévu au paragraphe (1). Le cas échéant, la personne qui préside l’instance veille à ce que les renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, sauf en conformité avec la présente loi.
(3) Le fonctionnaire — à l’exclusion d’un participant — qui croit que peuvent être divulgués dans le cadre d’une instance des renseignements sensibles ou des renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables peut aviser par écrit le procureur général du Canada de la possibilité de divulgation; le cas échéant, l’avis précise la nature, la date et le lieu de l’instance.
(4) Le fonctionnaire — à l’exclusion d’un participant — qui croit que des renseignements sensibles ou des renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables sont sur le point d’être divulgués au cours d’une instance peut soulever la question devant la personne qui préside l’instance; le cas échéant, il est tenu d’aviser par écrit le procureur général du Canada de la question dès que possible, que ces renseignements aient fait ou non l’objet de l’avis prévu au paragraphe (3) et la personne qui préside l’instance veille à ce que les renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, sauf en conformité avec la présente loi.
(5) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale, les avis prévus à l’un des paragraphes (1) à (4) sont donnés à la fois au procureur général du Canada et au ministre de la Défense nationale.
(6) Le présent article ne s’applique pas:
a) à la communication de renseignements par une personne à son avocat dans le cadre d’une instance, si ceux-ci concernent l’instance;
b) aux renseignements communiqués dans le cadre de l’exercice des attributions du procureur général du Canada, du ministre de la Défense nationale, du juge ou d’un tribunal d’appel ou d’examen au titre de l’article 38, du présent article, des articles 38.02 à 38.13 ou des articles 38.15 ou 38.16;
c) aux renseignements dont la divulgation est autorisée par l’institution fédérale qui les a produits ou pour laquelle ils ont été produits ou, dans le cas où ils n’ont pas été produits par ou pour une institution fédérale, par la première institution fédérale à les avoir reçus;
d) aux renseignements divulgués auprès de toute entité mentionnée à l’annexe et, le cas échéant, à une application figurant en regard d’une telle entité.
(7) Les paragraphes (1) et (2) ne s’appliquent pas au participant si une institution gouvernementale visée à l’alinéa (6)c) l’informe qu’il n’est pas nécessaire, afin d’éviter la divulgation des renseignements visés à cet alinéa, de donner un avis au procureur général du Canada au titre du paragraphe (1) ou de soulever la question devant la personne présidant une instance au titre du paragraphe (2).
(8) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par décret, ajouter, modifier ou supprimer la mention, à l’annexe, d’une entité ou d’une application figurant en regard d’une telle entité.
38.02 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe 38.01(6), nul ne peut divulguer, dans le cadre d’une instance :
a) les renseignements qui font l’objet d’un avis donné au titre de l’un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4);
b) le fait qu’un avis est donné au procureur général du Canada au titre de l’un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4), ou à ce dernier et au ministre de la Défense nationale au titre du paragraphe 38.01(5);
c) le fait qu'une demande a été présentée à la Cour fédérale au titre de l'article 38.04, qu'il a été interjeté appel d'une ordonnance rendue au titre de l'un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) relativement à une telle demande ou qu'une telle ordonnance a été renvoyée pour examen;
d) le fait qu’un accord a été conclu au titre de l’article 38.031 ou du paragraphe 38.04(6).
(1.1) Dans le cas où une entité mentionnée à l’annexe rend, dans le cadre d’une application qui y est mentionnée en regard de celle-ci, une décision ou une ordonnance qui entraînerait la divulgation de renseignements sensibles ou de renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables, elle ne peut les divulguer ou les faire divulguer avant que le procureur général du Canada ait été avisé de ce fait et qu’il se soit écoulé un délai de dix jours postérieur à l’avis.
(2) La divulgation des renseignements ou des faits visés au paragraphe (1) n’est pas interdite :
a) si le procureur général du Canada l’autorise par écrit au titre de l’article 38.03 ou par un accord conclu en application de l’article 38.031 ou du paragraphe 38.04(6);
b) si le juge l’autorise au titre de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) ou (2) et que le délai prévu ou accordé pour en appeler a expiré ou, en cas d’appel ou de renvoi pour examen, sa décision est confirmée et les recours en appel sont épuisés.
38.03 (1) Le procureur général du Canada peut, à tout moment, autoriser la divulgation de tout ou partie des renseignements ou des faits dont la divulgation est interdite par le paragraphe 38.02(1) et assortir son autorisation des conditions qu’il estime indiquées.
(2) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale, le procureur général du Canada ne peut autoriser la divulgation qu’avec l’assentiment du ministre de la Défense nationale.
(3) Dans les dix jours suivant la réception du premier avis donné au titre de l’un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4) relativement à des renseignements donnés, le procureur général du Canada notifie par écrit sa décision relative à la divulgation de ces renseignements à toutes les personnes qui ont donné un tel avis.
38.031 (1) Le procureur général du Canada et la personne ayant donné l'avis prévu aux paragraphes 38.01(1) ou (2) qui n'a pas l'obligation de divulguer des renseignements dans le cadre d'une instance, mais veut divulguer ou faire divulguer les renseignements qui ont fait l'objet de l'avis ou les faits visés aux alinéas 38.02(1)b) à d), peuvent, avant que cette personne présente une demande à la Cour fédérale au titre de l'alinéa 38.04(2)c), conclure un accord prévoyant la divulgation d'une partie des renseignements ou des faits ou leur divulgation assortie de conditions.
(2) Si un accord est conclu, la personne ne peut présenter de demande à la Cour fédérale au titre de l'alinéa 38.04(2)c) relativement aux renseignements ayant fait l'objet de l'avis qu'elle a donné au procureur général du Canada au titre des paragraphes 38.01(1) ou (2).
38.04 (1) Le procureur général du Canada peut, à tout moment et en toutes circonstances, demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance portant sur la divulgation de renseignements à l'égard desquels il a reçu un avis au titre de l'un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4).
(2) Si, en ce qui concerne des renseignements à l'égard desquels il a reçu un avis au titre de l'un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4), le procureur général du Canada n'a pas notifié sa décision à l'auteur de l'avis en conformité avec le paragraphe 38.03(3) ou, sauf par un accord conclu au titre de l'article 38.031, il a autorisé la divulgation d'une partie des renseignements ou a assorti de conditions son autorisation de divulgation :
a) il est tenu de demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance concernant la divulgation des renseignements si la personne qui l'a avisé au titre des paragraphes 38.01(1) ou (2) est un témoin;
b) la personne — à l'exclusion d'un témoin — qui a l'obligation de divulguer des renseignements dans le cadre d'une instance est tenue de demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance concernant la divulgation des renseignements;
c) la personne qui n'a pas l'obligation de divulguer des renseignements dans le cadre d'une instance, mais qui veut en divulguer ou en faire divulguer, peut demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance concernant la divulgation des renseignements.
(3) La personne qui présente une demande à la Cour fédérale au titre des alinéas (2)b) ou c) en notifie le procureur général du Canada.
(4) Toute demande présentée en application du présent article est confidentielle. Sous réserve de l'article 38.12, l'administrateur en chef du Service administratif des tribunaux peut prendre les mesures qu'il estime indiquées en vue d'assurer la confidentialité de la demande et des renseignements sur lesquels elle porte.
(5) Dès que la Cour fédérale est saisie d'une demande présentée au titre du présent article, le juge :
a) entend les observations du procureur général du Canada — et du ministre de la Défense nationale dans le cas d'une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale — sur l'identité des parties ou des témoins dont les intérêts sont touchés par l'interdiction de divulgation ou les conditions dont l'autorisation de divulgation est assortie et sur les personnes qui devraient être avisées de la tenue d'une audience;
b) décide s'il est nécessaire de tenir une audience;
c) s'il estime qu'une audience est nécessaire :
(i) spécifie les personnes qui devraient en être avisées,
(ii) ordonne au procureur général du Canada de les aviser,
(iii) détermine le contenu et les modalités de l'avis;
d) s'il l'estime indiqué en l'espèce, peut donner à quiconque la possibilité de présenter des observations.
(6) Après la saisine de la Cour fédérale d'une demande présentée au titre de l'alinéa (2)c) ou l'institution d'un appel ou le renvoi pour examen d'une ordonnance du juge rendue en vertu de l'un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) relativement à cette demande, et avant qu'il soit disposé de l'appel ou de l'examen :
a) le procureur général du Canada peut conclure avec l'auteur de la demande un accord prévoyant la divulgation d'une partie des renseignements ou des faits visés aux alinéas 38.02(1)b) à d) ou leur divulgation assortie de conditions;
b) si un accord est conclu, le tribunal n'est plus saisi de la demande et il est mis fin à l'audience, à l'appel ou à l'examen.
(7) Sous réserve du paragraphe (6), si le procureur général du Canada autorise la divulgation de tout ou partie des renseignements ou supprime les conditions dont la divulgation est assortie après la saisine de la Cour fédérale aux termes du présent article et, en cas d'appel ou d'examen d'une ordonnance du juge rendue en vertu de l'un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3), avant qu'il en soit disposé, le tribunal n'est plus saisi de la demande et il est mis fin à l'audience, à l'appel ou à l'examen à l'égard de tels des renseignements dont la divulgation est autorisée ou n'est plus assortie de conditions.
38.05 Si la personne qui préside ou est désignée pour présider l’instance à laquelle est liée l’affaire ou, à défaut de désignation, la personne qui est habilitée à effectuer la désignation reçoit l’avis visé à l’alinéa 38.04(5)c), elle peut, dans les dix jours, fournir au juge un rapport sur toute question relative à l’instance qu’elle estime utile à celui-ci.
38.06 (1) Le juge peut rendre une ordonnance autorisant la divulgation des renseignements, sauf s’il conclut qu’elle porterait préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales.
(2) Si le juge conclut que la divulgation des renseignements porterait préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales, mais que les raisons d’intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation l’emportent sur les raisons d’intérêt public qui justifient la non-divulgation, il peut par ordonnance, compte tenu des raisons d’intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation ainsi que de la forme et des conditions de divulgation les plus susceptibles de limiter le préjudice porté aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales, autoriser, sous réserve des conditions qu’il estime indiquées, la divulgation de tout ou partie des renseignements, d’un résumé de ceux-ci ou d’un aveu écrit des faits qui y sont liés.
(3) Dans le cas où le juge n’autorise pas la divulgation au titre des paragraphes (1) ou (2), il rend une ordonnance confirmant l’interdiction de divulgation.
(3.1) Le juge peut recevoir et admettre en preuve tout élément qu’il estime digne de foi et approprié — même si le droit canadien ne prévoit pas par ailleurs son admissibilité — et peut fonder sa décision sur cet élément.
(4) La personne qui veut faire admettre en preuve ce qui a fait l’objet d’une autorisation de divulgation prévue au paragraphe (2), mais qui ne pourra peut-être pas le faire à cause des règles d’admissibilité applicables à l’instance, peut demander à un juge de rendre une ordonnance autorisant la production en preuve des renseignements, du résumé ou de l’aveu dans la forme ou aux conditions que celui-ci détermine, dans la mesure où telle forme ou telles conditions sont conformes à l’ordonnance rendue au titre du paragraphe (2).
(5) Pour l’application du paragraphe (4), le juge prend en compte tous les facteurs qui seraient pertinents pour statuer sur l’admissibilité en preuve au cours de l’instance.
38.07 Le juge peut ordonner au procureur général du Canada d’aviser de l’ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) toute personne qui, de l’avis du juge, devrait être avisée.
38.08 Si le juge conclut qu’une partie à l’instance dont les intérêts sont lésés par une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) n’a pas eu la possibilité de présenter ses observations au titre de l’alinéa 38.04(5)d), il renvoie l’ordonnance à la Cour d’appel fédérale pour examen.
38.09 (1) Il peut être interjeté appel d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) devant la Cour d’appel fédérale.
(2) Le délai dans lequel l’appel peut être interjeté est de dix jours suivant la date de l’ordonnance frappée d’appel, mais la Cour d’appel fédérale peut le proroger si elle l’estime indiqué en l’espèce.
38.1 Malgré toute autre loi fédérale :
a) le délai de demande d’autorisation d’en appeler à la Cour suprême du Canada est de dix jours suivant le jugement frappé d’appel, mais ce tribunal peut proroger le délai s’il l’estime indiqué en l’espèce;
b) dans les cas où l’autorisation est accordée, l’appel est interjeté conformément au paragraphe 60(1) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, mais le délai qui s’applique est celui qu’a fixé la Cour suprême du Canada.
38.11 (1) Les audiences prévues au paragraphe 38.04(5) et l’audition de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) sont tenues à huis clos et, à la demande soit du procureur général du Canada, soit du ministre de la Défense nationale dans le cas des instances engagées sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale, elles ont lieu dans la région de la capitale nationale définie à l’annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale.
(2) Le juge saisi d’une affaire au titre du paragraphe 38.04(5) ou le tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) donne au procureur général du Canada — et au ministre de la Défense nationale dans le cas d’une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale — la possibilité de présenter ses observations en l’absence d’autres parties. Il peut en faire de même pour les personnes qu’il entend en application de l’alinéa 38.04(5)d).
38.12 (1) Le juge saisi d’une affaire au titre du paragraphe 38.04(5) ou le tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) peut rendre toute ordonnance qu’il estime indiquée en l’espèce en vue de protéger la confidentialité des renseignements sur lesquels porte l’audience, l’appel ou l’examen.
(2) Le dossier ayant trait à l’audience, à l’appel ou à l’examen est confidentiel. Le juge ou le tribunal saisi peut ordonner qu’il soit placé sous scellé et gardé dans un lieu interdit au public.
38.13 (1) Le procureur général du Canada peut délivrer personnellement un certificat interdisant la divulgation de renseignements dans le cadre d’une instance dans le but de protéger soit des renseignements obtenus à titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur la protection de l’information — ou qui concernent une telle entité, soit la défense ou la sécurité nationales. La délivrance ne peut être effectuée qu’après la prise, au titre de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale, d’une ordonnance ou d’une décision qui entraînerait la divulgation des renseignements devant faire l’objet du certificat.
(2) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale, le procureur général du Canada ne peut délivrer de certificat qu’avec l’assentiment du ministre de la Défense nationale donné personnellement par celui-ci.
(3) Le procureur général du Canada fait signifier une copie du certificat :
a) à la personne qui préside ou est désignée pour présider l’instance à laquelle sont liés les renseignements ou, à défaut de désignation, à la personne qui est habilitée à effectuer la désignation;
b) à toute partie à l’instance;
c) à toute personne qui donne l’avis prévu à l’article 38.01 dans le cadre de l’instance;
d) à toute personne qui, dans le cadre de l’instance, a l’obligation de divulguer ou pourrait divulguer ou faire divulguer les renseignements à l’égard desquels le procureur général du Canada a été avisé en application de l’article 38.01;
e) à toute partie aux procédures engagées en application du paragraphe 38.04(5) ou à l’appel d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) en ce qui concerne les renseignements;
f) au juge qui tient une audience en application du paragraphe 38.04(5) et à tout tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) en ce qui concerne les renseignements;
g) à toute autre personne à laquelle, de l’avis du procureur général du Canada, une copie du certificat devrait être signifiée.
(4) Le procureur général du Canada fait déposer une copie du certificat :
a) auprès de la personne responsable des dossiers relatifs à l’instance;
b) au greffe de la Cour fédérale et à celui de tout tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3).
(5) Une fois délivré, le certificat a pour effet, malgré toute autre disposition de la présente loi, d’interdire, selon ses termes, la divulgation des renseignements.
(6) La Loi sur les textes réglementaires ne s’applique pas aux certificats délivrés au titre du paragraphe (1).
(7) Dès que le certificat est délivré, le procureur général du Canada le fait publier dans la Gazette du Canada.
(8) Le certificat ou toute question qui en découle n’est susceptible de révision, de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention que sous le régime de l’article 38.131.
(9) Le certificat expire à la fin d’une période de quinze ans à compter de la date de sa délivrance et peut être délivré de nouveau.
38.131 (1) Toute partie à l’instance visée à l’article 38.13 peut demander à la Cour d’appel fédérale de rendre une ordonnance modifiant ou annulant un certificat délivré au titre de cet article pour les motifs mentionnés aux paragraphes (8) ou (9), selon le cas.
(2) Le demandeur en avise le procureur général du Canada.
(3) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale, l’avis prévu au paragraphe (2) est donné à la fois au procureur général du Canada et au ministre de la Défense nationale.
(4) Par dérogation à l’article 16 de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, la Cour d’appel fédérale est constituée d’un seul juge de ce tribunal pour l’étude de la demande.
(5) Pour l’étude de la demande, le juge peut recevoir et admettre en preuve tout élément qu’il estime digne de foi et approprié — même si le droit canadien ne prévoit pas par ailleurs son admissibilité — et peut se fonder sur cet élément pour rendre sa décision au titre de l’un des paragraphes (8) à (10).
(6) Les articles 38.11 et 38.12 s’appliquent, avec les adaptations nécessaires, à la demande présentée au titre du paragraphe (1).
(7) Le juge étudie la demande le plus tôt possible, mais au plus tard dans les dix jours suivant la présentation de la demande au titre du paragraphe (1).
(8) Si le juge estime qu’une partie des renseignements visés par le certificat ne porte pas sur des renseignements obtenus à titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur la protection de l’information — ou qui concernent une telle entité ni sur la défense ou la sécurité nationales, il modifie celui-ci en conséquence par ordonnance.
(9) Si le juge estime qu’aucun renseignement visé par le certificat ne porte sur des renseignements obtenus à titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur la protection de l’information — ou qui concernent une telle entité, ni sur la défense ou la sécurité nationales, il révoque celui-ci par ordonnance.
(10) Si le juge estime que tous les renseignements visés par le certificat portent sur des renseignements obtenus à titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur la protection de l’information — ou qui concernent une telle entité, ou sur la défense ou la sécurité nationales, il confirme celui-ci par ordonnance.
(11) La décision du juge rendue au titre de l’un des paragraphes (8) à (10) est définitive et, par dérogation à toute autre loi fédérale, non susceptible d’appel ni de révision judiciaire.
(12) Dès que possible après la décision du juge, le procureur général du Canada fait publier dans la Gazette du Canada, avec mention du certificat publié antérieurement :
a) le certificat modifié au titre du paragraphe (8);
b) un avis de la révocation d’un certificat au titre du paragraphe (9).
38.14 (1) La personne qui préside une instance criminelle peut rendre l’ordonnance qu’elle estime indiquée en l’espèce en vue de protéger le droit de l’accusé à un procès équitable, pourvu que telle ordonnance soit conforme à une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) relativement à cette instance, a une décision en appel ou découlant de l’examen ou au certificat délivré au titre de l’article 38.13.
(2) L’ordonnance rendue au titre du paragraphe (1) peut notamment :
a) annuler un chef d’accusation d’un acte d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation, ou autoriser l’instruction d’un chef d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation pour une infraction moins grave ou une infraction incluse;
b) ordonner l’arrêt des procédures;
c) être rendue à l’encontre de toute partie sur toute question liée aux renseignements dont la divulgation est interdite.
38.15 (1) Dans le cas où des renseignements sensibles ou des renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables peuvent être divulgués dans le cadre d’une poursuite qui n’est pas engagée par le procureur général du Canada ou pour son compte, il peut délivrer un fiat et le faire signifier au poursuivant.
(2) Le fiat établit la compétence exclusive du procureur général du Canada à l’égard de la poursuite qui y est mentionnée et des procédures qui y sont liées.
(3) L’original ou un double du fiat est déposé devant le tribunal saisi de la poursuite — ou d’une autre procédure liée à celle-ci — engagée par le procureur général du Canada ou pour son compte.
(4) Le fiat ou le double de celui-ci :
a) est une preuve concluante que le procureur général du Canada ou son délégué a compétence pour mener la poursuite qui y est mentionnée ou les procédures qui y sont liées;
b) est admissible en preuve sans qu’il soit nécessaire de prouver la signature ou la qualité officielle du procureur général du Canada.
(5) Le présent article ne s’applique pas aux instances engagées sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale.
38.16 Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prendre les mesures qu’il estime nécessaires à l’application des articles 38 à 38.15, notamment régir les avis, certificats et fiat. |
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1967-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONS v. THE COURT MARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR
DOCKET: T-1968-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROSECUTIONS v. THE CHIEF MILITARY JUDGE
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 15, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Alain Préfontaine
Ronald Lunau |
FOR THE RESPONDENT THE COURT MARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR
|
|
Guy Cournoyer Nicolas Cournoyer |
THE CHIEF MILITARY JUDGE |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
|
|
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Ottawa, Ontario
Shadley Battista, s.e.n.c. Montreal |
THE COURT MARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE RESPONDENT THE CHIEF MILITARY JUDGE |