Jean-Pierre Lussier

The appellant, Director of the Montreal Urban Community Police Department, sought an injunction to prohibit the respondent inquiry commissioner from publishing information regarding police informers and confidential investigation methods.

The Superior Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the motion.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested injunction was no longer necessary given the issuance of a writ of evocation in a related case, which controlled the use and publication of such evidence.

The appellant, a peace officer, refused to disclose the identity of a police informer to a provincial inquiry commission investigating police activities.

The commissioner ordered him to answer, and the appellant sought a writ of evocation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the commission's mandate was constitutionally valid, the commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by attempting to compel the disclosure of a police informer's identity.

The Court ruled that the police informer privilege is an absolute common law rule of public order that falls under federal jurisdiction over criminal law, and cannot be abrogated or altered by provincial legislation such as the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appellants sought to quash a search warrant executed at a legal aid bureau to seize a legal aid application form.

The police alleged the applicant falsely reported his income to obtain legal aid.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while solicitor-client privilege is a substantive right that arises as soon as a potential client approaches a law firm, communications that are criminal in themselves (such as falsely stating income to fraudulently obtain legal aid) fall under an exception and are not privileged.

The Court affirmed the justice of the peace's jurisdiction to issue the warrant but emphasized that strict procedures must be followed to protect confidential information when searching a lawyer's office.

The appeal was dismissed.