Court File and Parties
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
DENNIS LU Applicant
COUNSEL:
Tim Radcliffe, for the Crown
Reem Zaia and Michael Nesbitt, for the Applicant
Sheldon Leung, for NRCAN, the Privy Council Office, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
HEARD: May 19, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION ON STAGE TWO OF THIRD PARTY RECORDS APPLICATION
CARTER J.
OVERVIEW
1In a previous decision, I ordered that a number of documents be produced for my review. Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada has provided two volumes of materials that are responsive to the order, along with a helpful chart summarizing them. The parties made only limited submissions on the relevance of the documents, relying primarily on the submissions made at the stage one hearing.
2During a break at the oral hearing, I reviewed the documents under the heading Category 32 in the chart given the potential for s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act claims. After review, I ruled that all of the documents set out under the heading Category 32 in the chart should be disclosed, with the exception of Tab 10 which fell outside the time period I had previously held to be relevant in my stage one ruling and was therefore irrelevant.
3I have now reviewed the remaining documents. With respect to the documents listed under Categories 2, 10, 28, 24, 25, 30, and 31, I conclude that they are all relevant for the reasons set out in my stage one ruling. That is to say, all the documents fit into the general categories I had previously found to be relevant. Counsel for the AGC did not make any submissions with respect to balancing relevance against other interests. I would note that redactions have been made pursuant to ss. 38 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act. It is not the role of this Court to assess those redactions. As a result, all documents under the above noted Categories should be disclosed to the defence, with the redactions in place.
4With respect to the documents under Category 18, I conclude that they are irrelevant and ought not to be disclosed. They all relate to the hiring of a single co-op student for a low-level position. They have no bearing on any of the arguments the defence may wish to make at trial. In addition, they contain personal information about the individual in question.
Justice I. Carter
Date: May 25, 2026