Descôteaux v Mierzwinski
| Descôteaux et al v Mierzwinski | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| 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
- ↑ para. 618