J. _C.S. A.D. 1992 No. 1209 J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA IN THE MATTER OF THE INFORMATION SWORN BY SERGEANT T.D. BLUM OF REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN, PEACE OFFICER, ALLEGING THAT HARRY EDWARD STIENWAND, ROBERT A. LAPORTE AND OTTO DAVID CUTTS, DID BETWEEN ON OR ABOUT THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 AND ON OR ABOUT THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 AT OR NEAR REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN CONSPIRE TOGETHER TO COMMIT THE INDICTABLE OFFENCE OF FRAUD UPON SASKATCHEWAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION CONTRARY TO SECTION 380(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND DID THEREBY COMMIT AN OFFENCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 354(C) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND DID BETWEEN ON OR ABOUT THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 AND ON OR ABOUT THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 AT OR NEAR REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN, DEFRAUD THE SASKATCHEWAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF MONEY IN AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING $1,000.00 BY DECEIT, FALSEHOOD OR OTHER FRAUDULENT MEANS, TO WIT: BY MEANS OF FALSE INVOICES TOTALLING $66,000.00 AND DID THEREBY COMMIT AN OFFENCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 380(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. and IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RELEVANT TO THE SAID CHARGES. BETWEEN: ROBERT A. LAPORTE, HARRY EDWARD STIENWAND, and OTTO DAVID CUTTS and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT F.J. Kovach for harry Edward Stienwand A.A. Fox for Robert A. Laporte Eric Neufeld for the Crown FIAT BARCLAY J. December 8, 1993 Further to my fiat of September 21, 1993, and the more recent chambers application, the only matters that reserved are MMM, NNN, OOO, PPP, number and number 10. will deal with them in order. MMM, NNN, OOO, PPP The Crown has already disclosed the contents of each of these blocks and the only matter remaining in issue is the name of the lawyer who released the information. This arose as result of the action of Regina lawyer who improperly revealed information from two of his divorce clients with respect to the charges against Stienwand et al. The Crown quite properly disclosed these statements which had been conveyed to the investigating officer, Sgt. Reid. The law is clear that the privilege applies only to the client and his solicitor. It does not extend to third party who learns of the communication. R. v. Kanester 1966 CanLII 530 (NS CA), [1967] C.C.C. 97 (S.C.C.). The information already disclosed is to some extent hearsay and is only marginally relevant. I, therefore, am of the view that it is not necessary to reveal the name of the solicitor and, therefore, unless the Crown intends to call the informant solicitor as a witness, his name is not to be disclosed. Item number 3. In respect to this issue Mr. Neufeld states in part as follows: Memorandum relating to the defence application for disclosure, concerns with respect to the release of his intelligence reports and references to matters and individuals unrelated to matters in issue. Not fruits of this investigation and irrelevant. Disclosure opposed save for an excerpt from paragraph of the memorandum. It notes conversation with material crown witness on matter with respect to which we understand she was questioned. We are unsure if it qualifies as fruits of the investigation but out of abundance of caution it is being disclosed. The excerpt reads as follows: 3.The day after Colleen Galenzoski testified in chief at the Preliminary proceeding regarding these matters, she contacted the writer to determine if she had given any written documentation to myself at the time of her complaints. The following sentence in that same paragraph indicates that there was discussion between the two relating to questions asked by defence counsel and states an opinion of the officer resulting from the same, but there is no further recording of what Ms. Galenzoski may have said or what if anything, Sgt. Reid may have said in response. In my view the contents of this report are marginally relevant and as there is no legal reason why they should not be disclosed, I, therefore, order their production. Item number 10. These matters do not appear to be relevant and, therefore, disclosure need not be made.
See also 108 Sask. R. 87; [1993] T.W.L. QB93357 QB93p186; and [1993] T.W.L. CA93115, CA93p60. The Court of Appeal had ordered the Crown to produce an itemized inventory of the information in its possession to enable the Queen's Bench to review the information the Crown should disclose to the defence. This fiat concerned several documents. The Crown had already disclosed the contents of each of these documents and the only matter remaining in issue was the name of the lawyer who released the information. This arose as a result of the action of a Regina lawyer who had improperly revealed information from two of his divorce clients with respect to the charges against LaPorte et al. The Crown quite properly disclosed these statements which had been conveyed to the investigating officer. HELD: It was not necessary to reveal the name of the solicitor and, therefore, unless the Crown intended to call the informant solicitor as a witness, his name was not to be disclosed.