Descôteaux v Mierzwinski

Descôteaux et al v Mierzwinski
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: 27–28 October 1981
Judgment: 23 June 1982
Full case name Simon Descôteaux and Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal v Alexandre Mierzwinski
Citations [1982] 1 SCR 860
Docket No. 16113
Prior history APPEAL from Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, [1980] 16 CR (3d) 188 (Quebec Court of Appeal), affirming Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, [1978] Que SC 792 (Quebec Superior Court)
Ruling Appeal dismissed
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin
Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Lamer J
Laskin CJ and McIntyre J took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 SCR 860 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on solicitor-client privilege. The Court reaffirmed the opinion in R. v. Solosky that privilege was a substantive right that even existed outside of a proceeding.

Background

The police were investigating the legal aid bureau in Montreal in relation to a charge on Marcellein Ledoux for falsely stating his financial status in order to qualify for the services. The police had a search warrant seize the records from the legal aid interview with Ledoux and the legal aid application he filled out. The clinic appealed the seizure on the basis that the documents were protected by solitictor-client privilege.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Lamer, writing for a unanimous Court, held that while the documents would normally be protected by privilege, they were ultimately un-protected because they were, themselves, criminal.

Lamer described the privilege as:

all information which a person must provide in order to obtain legal advice and which is given in confidence for that purpose enjoys the privileges attaching to confidentiality. This confidentiality attaches to all communications made within the framework of the solicitor-client relationship[1]

He stated that where a law interferes with the right to privilege then the privilege must prevail except for where it is absolutely necessary in order to achieve the purpose of the enabling legislation.

Notes

  1. ↑ para. 618


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.