Source text

Huang v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2019-08-30
Neutral citation
2019 FC 1122
File numbers
DES-2-17, DES-4-19
Decision Content
Date: 20190830
Docket: DES-2-17
DES-4-19
Citation: 2019 FC 1122
Ottawa, Ontario, August 30, 2019
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
QING (QUENTIN) HUANG
Applicant
and
THE ATORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
THE ATORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
QING (QUENTIN) HUANG
AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
Respondents
PUBLIC JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Introduction
[1] This Classified Judgment and these Reasons concern three related matters. In the first proceeding under Court file DES-2-17, the Applicant, Mr. Huang, sought disclosure of information that had been withheld from him on national security and international relations grounds for his defence in a criminal trial. The Attorney General of Canada [Attorney General] opposed that application and sought an Order from the Court confirming the non-disclosure of the same information.
[2] Mr. Huang’s application was granted in part, and the judgment was appealed by the Attorney General and cross-appealed by the Applicant. With the exception of one issue that was returned to this Court for reconsideration, the Attorney General’s appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
[3] In the second proceeding under Court file DES-4-19, the Attorney General has brought a fresh application to protect information that was previously ordered to be disclosed. DES-2-17 and DES-4-19 are both before this Court under section 38.04(2)(c) of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5 [CEA].
[4] In addition, the Attorney General seeks to have this Court vary, under Rule 399(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, its previous order issued on July 7, 2017 in DES-2-17, because of matters that arose subsequent to the making of the order.
[5] As the three matters are closely related, I have chosen to issue one decision. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the motion to vary my prior decision in DES-2-17, address the reconsideration ordered by the Federal Court of Appeal in the same file and grant in part the application in DES-4-19.
II. Background
[6] Mr. Huang is before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) charged with four criminal offences under the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. The charges stem from the interception of telephone calls the Applicant allegedly made to the Embassy of the Peoples’ Republic of China in Ottawa by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS, or the Service) under the authority of a warrant issued by this Court. CSIS provided transcripts and recordings of the intercepts to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) pursuant to section 19 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 [CSIS Act]. A subsequent RCMP investigation, including a brief undercover operation, resulted in the Applicant’s arrest and prosecution.
[7] For the proceedings before the ONSC, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) disclosed evidence to Mr. Huang in accordance with its obligations under the standard set by R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326 at 336–338, 130 NR 277 [Stinchcombe]. Those obligations are to disclose all information, inculpatory or exculpatory, except evidence that is clearly irrelevant, beyond the control of the Crown or privileged. As part of this disclosure, PPSC produced redacted copies of an affidavit sworn by a CSIS officer on March 4, 2013 (the 2013 Affidavit) and a warrant issued by the Federal Court on March 7, 2013 (the 2013 Warrant). PPSC also produced the transcripts of the telephone calls provided to the RCMP.
[8] PPSC declined to provide unredacted copies of the 2013 Affidavit and the 2013 Warrant on the grounds that to do so would result in the disclosure of “sensitive information” or “potentially injurious information,” as defined in CEA section 38. In withholding that information, PPSC did not give notice to the Attorney General under CEA subsection 38.01(1) as PPSC initially understood that the Applicant did not intend to challenge the intercepted communications’ admissibility.
[9] In the Fall of 2016, after a change in Applicant’s counsel, the Applicant advised PPSC that he was considering bringing an application to challenge the 2013 Warrant to exclude the intercepted communications in accordance with the principles and procedures laid out in R v Garofoli, [1990] 2 SCR 1421, 116 NR 241 [Garofoli].
[10] On a Garofoli application, the question is whether, based on the record before the authorizing court, the warrant could have been granted. Since electronic intercepts or “wiretaps” constitute a search or seizure, the issuance of the warrant must conform to the minimum constitutional requirements demanded by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
[11] Generally speaking, there are two ways to challenge an electronic interception authorization. On a facial challenge, the applicant contends that the record before the authorizing judge was insufficient to satisfy the statutory preconditions; on a sub-facial challenge, the applicant argues that the record did not accurately reflect what the affiant knew or ought to have known, and that if it had, the authorization could not have issued: World Bank Group v Wallace, 2016 SCC 15 at paras 120–121. In either case, the challenges are predicated upon the disclosure of the affidavit and supporting materials placed before the issuing justice, with the redaction of sensitive information such as the identities of informants: R v Bennett, 2017 ONCA 780 at para 31. This is to enable the accused to make full answer and defence to the charges against him: Garofoli, above at 1443. The use of the disclosed information is limited to that purpose and can be made subject to conditions, including that the information be returned to the Crown: R v Kim, 2004 ABQB 157 at para 17.
[12] Informed of the change in the defence approach, PPSC then notified the Attorney General of the possible disclosure of the redacted information. The Attorney General prohibited disclosure of the redacted information, as authorized by the CEA. In the usual course of events, the Attorney General would then have applied to the Federal Court for an Order confirming the prohibition under CEA section 38.04(2)(a). However, that was pre-empted by Mr. Huang’s application, filed on February 27, 2017, seeking disclosure of the redacted content of the 2013 Affidavit and the 2013 Warrant in what became Court file DES-2-17.
[13] After public and closed ex parte hearings, I issued public and private reasons: Huang v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 662. In my private reasons, I accepted most of the Attorney General’s claims for the protection of the redacted information as reasonable. However, some of the Attorney General’s claims, in my view, overreached. On that basis, I ordered disclosure of some of the information from the 2013 Affidavit. I also ordered disclosure of some information in the form of summaries.
[14] The Attorney General appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Applicant cross-appealed the judgment. After public and ex parte hearings, the Federal Court of Appeal granted the Attorney General’s appeal in part and dismissed the Applicant’s cross-appeal: Canada (Attorney General) v Huang, 2018 FCA 109 (Huang, FCA 2018).
[15] The Court of Appeal returned the matter to the Federal Court to reassess a claim of privilege under CEA section 38 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The Court of Appeal otherwise upheld the Federal Court’s determinations with respect to the information to be disclosed and confirmed the summaries, except for one sentence. This is explained in the Court of Appeal’s classified Private Reasons for Judgment.
[16] The Attorney General sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The Supreme Court refused leave on March 14, 2019: 38264 (14 March 2019). The following day, a fresh written notice of the risk of disclosure was given to the Attorney General.
[17] On March 27, 2019, the Attorney General filed a classified motion before the Federal Court seeking to have the Court reconsider its original private judgment. The motion contends that new matters have arisen since the Federal Court’s judgment that warrant setting aside or varying the private judgment under Rule 399(2)(a). This and the reassessment ordered by the Court of Appeal are the matters being determined in docket DES-2-17.
[18] On March 29, 2019 the Attorney General filed a new CEA section 38 application relating to certain information that the Federal Court decision ordered to be disclosed. This is the matter being determined in docket DES-4-19.
[19] Mr. Huang was served with an amended Notice of Application under CEA section 38 on April 3, 2019. Counsel for Mr. Huang was informed of the classified motion by letter from counsel for the Attorney General on April 11, 2019.
[20] The Attorney General filed the classified affidavits of two public officials in support of the reassessment, the motion for reconsideration and the fresh section 38 application. Additional classified affidavits were filed to introduce documents. Following the disposition of some preliminary matters, reviewed below, the Court heard the viva voce evidence of the two affiants on May 27, 2019 and the oral submissions of counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus curiae on May 28, 2019. The amicus curiae and the Attorney General also submitted written representations.
[21] The Court also heard Mr. Huang’s counsel’s oral representations at an in camera and ex parte hearing on May 3, 2019. This hearing provided the Court an opportunity to receive information from Mr. Huang’s counsel relating to the proceedings before the ONSC and representations on both the motion to vary in DES-2-17 and the fresh CEA section 38 application in DES-4-19. Mr. Huang’s counsel did not have access to the Federal Court’s or the Federal Court of Appeal’s private judgments or to the classified material filed on the present motion and application. Thus their representations, while helpful in informing the Court about matters relating to Mr. Huang’s defence, were necessarily limited in scope and not informed by knowledge of the redacted information at issue in these proceedings.
[22] In filing the application in DES-4-19, the Attorney General proposed that the DPP should be named as a Respondent. The Attorney General informed the Court that this was because the DPP could be construed to be a person “directly affected by the order sought in the application.” Such persons are required to be named as respondents by Rule 303(1)(a). This was the first CEA section 38 matter in which this has been done to my knowledge, although PPSC counsel have been invited and permitted to sit in on public case management conferences relating to other designated proceedings arising from prosecutions of which they have carriage.
[23] In this matter, PPSC counsel participated in a case management conference and submitted a Memorandum of Law pertaining to the Garofoli principles and procedure. PPSC counsel did not participate in any other manner and provided no oral or written representations regarding the motion and applications. However, one of the classified affidavits submitted on behalf of the Attorney General contains references to information the affiant received from PPSC counsel pertaining to the underlying criminal proceedings.
[24] There is some advantage in having PPSC counsel participate in the case management of a CEA section 38 matter relating to a criminal prosecution as they can assist the Court in understanding the issues before the criminal trial court and status of those proceedings. They may also play a role in providing information at the behest of this Court to the trial court. In this instance, I did not consider it necessary to invite submissions from the parties regarding the participation of the DPP, limited as it was. On another occasion, it may be necessary to determine whether the DPP, who exercises the prosecution function as a statutory delegate of the Attorney General, may properly be considered a “person directly affected” under Rule 303. This case should not be taken as authority for that proposition as it was neither argued nor decided.
III. Preliminary matters
A. Amicus curiae
[25] As a preliminary matter, it was necessary to determine whether to continue the appointment of the amicus curiae in both of these proceedings and, if so, to outline the scope of that role. The amicus, Mr. Anil Kapoor, was originally appointed to DES-2-17 by order of this Court dated March 22, 2017. His appointment was “to assist the Court in performing its statutory obligations under [CEA section 38].” As the proceedings continue to concern CEA section 38 and DES-2-17 remained to be completed following the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Court was satisfied that the amicus’ appointment was still valid. Mr. Kapoor had also served as amicus in the Court of Appeal proceedings and had been appointed to assist the Supreme Court of Canada should it have granted the leave application.
[26] I issued an Order on April 15, 2019, appointing Mr. Anil Kapoor as amicus for the purpose of the new section 38 application in DES-4-19. At the Parties’ request, and for the sake of clarity, I invited them to make submissions on the appointment’s terms and conditions.
[27] The Applicant sought to have the amicus’s role in these proceedings expanded so that the amicus would represent the Applicant’s interests. In essence, the Applicant asked this Court to designate the amicus as his in camera, ex parte counsel. This was required, the Applicant argued, because he was being excluded from part of his criminal trial by way of these ex parte proceedings.
[28] The Attorney General opposed the Applicant’s request. According to the Respondent, the amicus is, and must remain, a friend and aide of the Court. This would not be possible, the Respondent submitted, if the amicus had obligations to both the Court and the Applicant.
[29] I heard the Parties in regards to these submissions on May 7, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked the Parties to submit draft wording they wanted included in an Order clarifying the amicus’s appointment terms. I received submissions from both Parties. Despite originally indicating that he would not make submissions on the terms of his appointment, the amicus contacted the Court after reviewing these submissions to express concerns with one of the proposed terms of appointment, which would have prohibited any communication with counsel for the Applicant, even on matters unrelated to these proceedings. I agreed that was unnecessarily restrictive.
[30] After considering all submissions, and after deliberating on the matter, I issued a further Order on May 24, 2019 outlining the amicus’s terms of appointment for the ex parte, in camera hearing on May 27 and 28, 2019. In this Order, I provided the amicus broad authority to represent the interests of justice and make arguments on the Applicant’s behalf. I did not, however, grant the Order in the words specifically requested by the Applicant.
[31] The amicus proceeded per the terms of his appointment. I would note, as the Court of Appeal did at paragraph 37 of its public reasons, that despite the Applicant’s concerns regarding the wording of the amicus’s terms, there is no doubt that amicus served the interests of justice in the proceedings before this Court. The amicus fulfilled his role in a way that ensured the Applicant’s interests were properly and thoroughly considered in his absence and that of his counsel.
B. Jurisdiction
[32] As a further preliminary matter, this Court must also determine whether it has the jurisdiction to reconsider matters that the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld. At first impression, that is not obvious.
[33] As noted above, in its June 1, 2018 judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court’s determinations with respect to the information to be disclosed, with the exception of one sentence of a summary related to the reconsideration direction. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal for the limited purpose of returning the file to the Designated Judge to assess pursuant to section 38 of the CEA and on the basis of further submissions and new evidence, whether |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| could be disclosed to Mr. Huang. In addition to that assessment, the Attorney General now asks this Court to reconsider provisions of its order that were upheld by the Court of Appeal.
[34] The Attorney General’s position is that Rule 399(2)(a) provides the Court with the authority to vary its July 7, 2017 judgment, notwithstanding the subsequent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal upholding most of that order’s terms. At first impression, the amicus was of the view that the Federal Court was functus officio on matters that had subsequently been decided by the Federal Court of Appeal. Instead, the Attorney General’s motion for reconsideration would best be brought before the Federal Court of Appeal.
[35] The Attorney General drew the Court’s attention to the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex, 2016 FCA 194 [AstraZeneca]. In that case, which arose from a patent infringement action, the trial judge, relying on Grenier v Canada, 2008 FCA 63 [Grenier], dismissed a motion to vary a judgment on the ground that when a judgment had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal, it was for that Court to vary the judgment: Apotex Inc v AstraZeneca Canada Inc, 2015 FC 799 at para 16.
[36] On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that where a judgment has been upheld, any subsequent proceeding to vary the judgment under Rule 399 on newly discovered information should be brought before the original decision maker: AstraZeneca, at paras 17–20. Grenier, the Court of Appeal clarified, stands for the proposition that a trial court cannot correct a judgment it has rendered if it has been the subject of a judgment by the Court of Appeal. In Grenier, the Court was not required to consider the proper forum in which to bring a motion under Rule 399 and did not decide that issue.
[37] This interpretation is consistent, the Court of Appeal noted at paragraph 21, with the position taken by the Ontario Courts in applying Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194: Mehedi v 2057161 Ontario Inc (Job Success), 2014 ONCA 604; Aristocrat v Aristocrat (2004), 73 OR (3d) 275, 190 OAC 327 (CA).
[38] The question under Rule 399 is not whether the judgment ought to be set aside or varied because of an error in the judgment itself but because of matters discovered after the judgment was made. In such circumstances, any subsequent proceeding to set aside the judgment is properly brought in the trial court: AstraZeneca at para 22, citing Royal Trust Company v EM Jones (1961), [1962] SCR 132, 31 DLR (2d) 292.
[39] In the result, I accept that, as the original decision maker, I am better positioned to determine whether or not to vary my decision and have the authority to do so under Rule 399.
[40] I will now proceed to consider the motion to vary my judgment in DES-2-17, the reassessment and the fresh application under CEA section 38 in DES-4-19.
IV. Motion to Vary
[41] Rule 399(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules reads as follows:
Setting aside or variance
Annulation
399 (2) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order
399 (2) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier une ordonnance dans l’un ou l’autre des cas suivants :
(a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order…
a) des faits nouveaux sont survenus ou ont été découverts après que l’ordonnance a été rendue…
[42] The Attorney General contends that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Court’s Private Judgment of July 7, 2017 are ambiguous. Paragraph 2 authorizes the disclosure of information set out in an attached Schedule “A” to the Applicant, Mr. Huang, his counsel and the ONSC. Paragraph 3 requires the Attorney General of Canada to provide fresh copies of the 2013 Affidavit to the Applicant’s counsel and the DPP, with the redactions lifted over the information ordered to be disclosed. Applicant’s Counsel and the DPP were authorized to share the revised copies of the 2013 Affidavit with the ONSC at their discretion. Mr. Huang is not mentioned specifically in paragraph 3.
[43] The Attorney General submits that one interpretation of the Private Judgment is that they are not required to disclose the information to Mr. Huang, but only to his counsel and the DPP. Another interpretation, the Attorney General submits, is that the requirement to disclose includes disclosure to Mr. Huang. It is that which the Attorney General seeks to prevent on this motion.
[44] The Attorney General contends that new matters that have arisen subsequent to the Private Judgment would allow the Court to vary or set aside those paragraphs in order to make it clear that the information contained in Schedule “A” and the fresh copies of the 2013 Affidavit would not be provided to Mr. Huang. Disclosure to his counsel would be conditional on their agreement not to share the information with Mr. Huang.
[45] As the author, I can confidently assert that there is nothing in the 58 paragraphs of reasons that accompany the Private Judgment, or the 83 paragraphs of Public Reasons also issued in 2017, to support the proposition that it was the Court’s intent to limit the disclosure ordered to Mr. Huang’s counsel and to bar Mr. Huang from receiving it. Furthermore, in my view, there is no indication in the Federal Court of Appeal’s Public or Private Reasons that this was raised as a consideration before that Court. As I read those reasons, the Attorney General sought on the appeal to prevent disclosure to both Mr. Huang and his counsel, as well as to any other member of the public.
[46] Notwithstanding the grounds of cross-appeal raised by the Applicant, this Court proceeded on the assumption in 2017, as it does now, that the PPSC was bound by the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Stinchcombe, above, which required disclosure to the accused of any relevant evidence in the Crown’s possession. As indicated at paragraphs 53–60 of my Public Reasons, I took into account the potential relevance of the content of the 2013 Affidavit and Warrant to the criminal proceedings. I concluded that much of the redacted information in the two documents would not be relevant to Mr. Huang’s defence. With regard to that information, the application for disclosure failed on the first branch of the Ribic test: Canada (Attorney General) v Ribic, 2003 FCA 246. However, I concluded, some of the information would be relevant to Mr. Huang’s challenge to the validity of the 2013 Warrant.
[47] I then proceeded to consider whether disclosure of information I found to be relevant would be injurious to the three protected national interests – international relations, national defence and national security – under the second branch of Ribic. If I considered the information to be non-injurious, I ordered that it be disclosed. If injurious, I considered whether it should be protected on the ground that the public interest in preventing the injury would outweigh the public interest in disclosure, including Mr. Huang’s Stinchcombe disclosure rights, as required by the third stage of Ribic. The result of this analysis was set out in my Private Judgment including the attached Schedule “A”.
[48] The specific relief sought by the Attorney General on this motion is to: (a) set aside or vary paragraphs 2, 3 and 9 of the Private Judgment and (b) set aside or vary the Court’s determinations set out in Schedule “A” to the Private Judgment |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[49] To grant a motion to set aside or vary an order under Rule 399(2)(a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order, three conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the new information must be a “matter” within the Rule’s meaning; (2) the “matter” must not have been discoverable before the making of the Order; and (3) the “matter” must have a determining influence on the decision: Ayangma v Canada, 2003 FCA 382 at para 3.
[50] The word “matter” has broad import: Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 911 at para 16. It includes “an element of the relief sought as opposed to an argument raised before the Court”: Haque v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 188 FTR 154 at para 5, 98 ACWS (3d) 1081 (FC). The “matter” must be relevant to the facts giving rise to the original order: Procter & Gamble, above, at para 16. Jurisprudence, whether existing prior to or after the decision at issue, does not constitute a new matter: Siddiqui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 237 at paras 12–17.
[51] The authority to reconsider is an exceptional power: Saywack v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 FC 189, 27 DLR (4th) 617 (FCA); Watson v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2002 FCT 610 (FC). Rule 399 cannot be used as a vehicle for revisiting judgments every time a change in the facts occurs: Zeneca Pharma Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (2000), 196 DLR (4th) 299, 10 CPR (4th) 146 (FCA). The policy of the law strongly favours finality of court orders to ensure the judicial process’ integrity: Nu-Pharm Inc v Canada (Attorney General) (1999), [2000] 1 FC 463, 179 DLR (4th) 531 (CA).
[52] The Attorney General submits that there are two new matters that have arisen since the issuance of the July 2017 Private Judgment that relate to the facts considered at that time. One is |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| The second new matter is the order issued by Mr. Justice Dambrot of the ONSC on March 16, 2018 sealing the court files and excluding the public from the hearing of the Garofoli motion filed by Mr. Huang to exclude the intercept evidence at trial: R v Huang, 2018 ONSC 888.
[53] In paragraphs 19 and 20 of my Private Judgment and Reasons, I addressed |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| I concluded at paragraph 20 that:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[54] Disclosure |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| was argued before the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dealt with this question at paragraphs 53 to 55 of its Private Reasons for Judgment issued on June 1, 2018. The Court agreed with the conclusion that I had reached |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[55] The evidence and submissions tendered by the Attorney General on the motion to vary do not convince me that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| is a “new matter” that would have had a determining effect on the decision that I made in 2017.
[56] At the initial hearing in DES-2-17, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| by a witness representing Global Affairs Canada (GAC). That witness, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| affirmed in his affidavit that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| was referring to the release of additional information beyond that pertaining to the fact of the interception of telephone communications at the PRC Embassy that had already been disclosed, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[57] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[58] On this motion, the Attorney General tendered the affidavit evidence and testimony of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[59] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[60] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[61] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[62] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[63] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[64] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||

Source text

Huang v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2019-08-30 Neutral citation 2019 FC 1122 File numbers DES-2-17, DES-4-19 Decision Content Date: 20190830 Docket: DES-2-17 DES-4-19 Citation: 2019 FC 1122 Ottawa, Ontario, August 30, 2019 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: QING (QUENTIN) HUANG Applicant and THE ATORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent AND BETWEEN: THE ATORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and QING (QUENTIN) HUANG AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondents PUBLIC JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Introduction [1] This Classified Judgment and these Reasons concern three related matters. In the first proceeding under Court file DES-2-17, the Applicant, Mr. Huang, sought disclosure of information that had been withheld from him on national security and international relations grounds for his defence in a criminal trial. The Attorney General of Canada [Attorney General] opposed that application and sought an Order from the Court confirming the non-disclosure of the same information. [2] Mr. Huang’s application was granted in part, and the judgment was appealed by the Attorney General and cross-appealed by the Applicant. With the exception of one issue that was returned to this Court for reconsideration, the Attorney General’s appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied. [3] In the second proceeding under Court file DES-4-19, the Attorney General has brought a fresh application to protect information that was previously ordered to be disclosed. DES-2-17 and DES-4-19 are both before this Court under section 38.04(2)(c) of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5 [CEA]. [4] In addition, the Attorney General seeks to have this Court vary, under Rule 399(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, its previous order issued on July 7, 2017 in DES-2-17, because of matters that arose subsequent to the making of the order. [5] As the three matters are closely related, I have chosen to issue one decision. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the motion to vary my prior decision in DES-2-17, address the reconsideration ordered by the Federal Court of Appeal in the same file and grant in part the application in DES-4-19. II. Background [6] Mr. Huang is before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) charged with four criminal offences under the Security of Information Act, RSC 1985, c O-5. The charges stem from the interception of telephone calls the Applicant allegedly made to the Embassy of the Peoples’ Republic of China in Ottawa by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS, or the Service) under the authority of a warrant issued by this Court. CSIS provided transcripts and recordings of the intercepts to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) pursuant to section 19 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 [CSIS Act]. A subsequent RCMP investigation, including a brief undercover operation, resulted in the Applicant’s arrest and prosecution. [7] For the proceedings before the ONSC, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) disclosed evidence to Mr. Huang in accordance with its obligations under the standard set by R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326 at 336–338, 130 NR 277 [Stinchcombe]. Those obligations are to disclose all information, inculpatory or exculpatory, except evidence that is clearly irrelevant, beyond the control of the Crown or privileged. As part of this disclosure, PPSC produced redacted copies of an affidavit sworn by a CSIS officer on March 4, 2013 (the 2013 Affidavit) and a warrant issued by the Federal Court on March 7, 2013 (the 2013 Warrant). PPSC also produced the transcripts of the telephone calls provided to the RCMP. [8] PPSC declined to provide unredacted copies of the 2013 Affidavit and the 2013 Warrant on the grounds that to do so would result in the disclosure of “sensitive information” or “potentially injurious information,” as defined in CEA section 38. In withholding that information, PPSC did not give notice to the Attorney General under CEA subsection 38.01(1) as PPSC initially understood that the Applicant did not intend to challenge the intercepted communications’ admissibility. [9] In the Fall of 2016, after a change in Applicant’s counsel, the Applicant advised PPSC that he was considering bringing an application to challenge the 2013 Warrant to exclude the intercepted communications in accordance with the principles and procedures laid out in R v Garofoli, [1990] 2 SCR 1421, 116 NR 241 [Garofoli]. [10] On a Garofoli application, the question is whether, based on the record before the authorizing court, the warrant could have been granted. Since electronic intercepts or “wiretaps” constitute a search or seizure, the issuance of the warrant must conform to the minimum constitutional requirements demanded by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. [11] Generally speaking, there are two ways to challenge an electronic interception authorization. On a facial challenge, the applicant contends that the record before the authorizing judge was insufficient to satisfy the statutory preconditions; on a sub-facial challenge, the applicant argues that the record did not accurately reflect what the affiant knew or ought to have known, and that if it had, the authorization could not have issued: World Bank Group v Wallace, 2016 SCC 15 at paras 120–121. In either case, the challenges are predicated upon the disclosure of the affidavit and supporting materials placed before the issuing justice, with the redaction of sensitive information such as the identities of informants: R v Bennett, 2017 ONCA 780 at para 31. This is to enable the accused to make full answer and defence to the charges against him: Garofoli, above at 1443. The use of the disclosed information is limited to that purpose and can be made subject to conditions, including that the information be returned to the Crown: R v Kim, 2004 ABQB 157 at para 17. [12] Informed of the change in the defence approach, PPSC then notified the Attorney General of the possible disclosure of the redacted information. The Attorney General prohibited disclosure of the redacted information, as authorized by the CEA. In the usual course of events, the Attorney General would then have applied to the Federal Court for an Order confirming the prohibition under CEA section 38.04(2)(a). However, that was pre-empted by Mr. Huang’s application, filed on February 27, 2017, seeking disclosure of the redacted content of the 2013 Affidavit and the 2013 Warrant in what became Court file DES-2-17. [13] After public and closed ex parte hearings, I issued public and private reasons: Huang v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 662. In my private reasons, I accepted most of the Attorney General’s claims for the protection of the redacted information as reasonable. However, some of the Attorney General’s claims, in my view, overreached. On that basis, I ordered disclosure of some of the information from the 2013 Affidavit. I also ordered disclosure of some information in the form of summaries. [14] The Attorney General appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Applicant cross-appealed the judgment. After public and ex parte hearings, the Federal Court of Appeal granted the Attorney General’s appeal in part and dismissed the Applicant’s cross-appeal: Canada (Attorney General) v Huang, 2018 FCA 109 (Huang, FCA 2018). [15] The Court of Appeal returned the matter to the Federal Court to reassess a claim of privilege under CEA section 38 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The Court of Appeal otherwise upheld the Federal Court’s determinations with respect to the information to be disclosed and confirmed the summaries, except for one sentence. This is explained in the Court of Appeal’s classified Private Reasons for Judgment. [16] The Attorney General sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The Supreme Court refused leave on March 14, 2019: 38264 (14 March 2019). The following day, a fresh written notice of the risk of disclosure was given to the Attorney General. [17] On March 27, 2019, the Attorney General filed a classified motion before the Federal Court seeking to have the Court reconsider its original private judgment. The motion contends that new matters have arisen since the Federal Court’s judgment that warrant setting aside or varying the private judgment under Rule 399(2)(a). This and the reassessment ordered by the Court of Appeal are the matters being determined in docket DES-2-17. [18] On March 29, 2019 the Attorney General filed a new CEA section 38 application relating to certain information that the Federal Court decision ordered to be disclosed. This is the matter being determined in docket DES-4-19. [19] Mr. Huang was served with an amended Notice of Application under CEA section 38 on April 3, 2019. Counsel for Mr. Huang was informed of the classified motion by letter from counsel for the Attorney General on April 11, 2019. [20] The Attorney General filed the classified affidavits of two public officials in support of the reassessment, the motion for reconsideration and the fresh section 38 application. Additional classified affidavits were filed to introduce documents. Following the disposition of some preliminary matters, reviewed below, the Court heard the viva voce evidence of the two affiants on May 27, 2019 and the oral submissions of counsel for the Attorney General and the amicus curiae on May 28, 2019. The amicus curiae and the Attorney General also submitted written representations. [21] The Court also heard Mr. Huang’s counsel’s oral representations at an in camera and ex parte hearing on May 3, 2019. This hearing provided the Court an opportunity to receive information from Mr. Huang’s counsel relating to the proceedings before the ONSC and representations on both the motion to vary in DES-2-17 and the fresh CEA section 38 application in DES-4-19. Mr. Huang’s counsel did not have access to the Federal Court’s or the Federal Court of Appeal’s private judgments or to the classified material filed on the present motion and application. Thus their representations, while helpful in informing the Court about matters relating to Mr. Huang’s defence, were necessarily limited in scope and not informed by knowledge of the redacted information at issue in these proceedings. [22] In filing the application in DES-4-19, the Attorney General proposed that the DPP should be named as a Respondent. The Attorney General informed the Court that this was because the DPP could be construed to be a person “directly affected by the order sought in the application.” Such persons are required to be named as respondents by Rule 303(1)(a). This was the first CEA section 38 matter in which this has been done to my knowledge, although PPSC counsel have been invited and permitted to sit in on public case management conferences relating to other designated proceedings arising from prosecutions of which they have carriage. [23] In this matter, PPSC counsel participated in a case management conference and submitted a Memorandum of Law pertaining to the Garofoli principles and procedure. PPSC counsel did not participate in any other manner and provided no oral or written representations regarding the motion and applications. However, one of the classified affidavits submitted on behalf of the Attorney General contains references to information the affiant received from PPSC counsel pertaining to the underlying criminal proceedings. [24] There is some advantage in having PPSC counsel participate in the case management of a CEA section 38 matter relating to a criminal prosecution as they can assist the Court in understanding the issues before the criminal trial court and status of those proceedings. They may also play a role in providing information at the behest of this Court to the trial court. In this instance, I did not consider it necessary to invite submissions from the parties regarding the participation of the DPP, limited as it was. On another occasion, it may be necessary to determine whether the DPP, who exercises the prosecution function as a statutory delegate of the Attorney General, may properly be considered a “person directly affected” under Rule 303. This case should not be taken as authority for that proposition as it was neither argued nor decided. III. Preliminary matters A. Amicus curiae [25] As a preliminary matter, it was necessary to determine whether to continue the appointment of the amicus curiae in both of these proceedings and, if so, to outline the scope of that role. The amicus, Mr. Anil Kapoor, was originally appointed to DES-2-17 by order of this Court dated March 22, 2017. His appointment was “to assist the Court in performing its statutory obligations under [CEA section 38].” As the proceedings continue to concern CEA section 38 and DES-2-17 remained to be completed following the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Court was satisfied that the amicus’ appointment was still valid. Mr. Kapoor had also served as amicus in the Court of Appeal proceedings and had been appointed to assist the Supreme Court of Canada should it have granted the leave application. [26] I issued an Order on April 15, 2019, appointing Mr. Anil Kapoor as amicus for the purpose of the new section 38 application in DES-4-19. At the Parties’ request, and for the sake of clarity, I invited them to make submissions on the appointment’s terms and conditions. [27] The Applicant sought to have the amicus’s role in these proceedings expanded so that the amicus would represent the Applicant’s interests. In essence, the Applicant asked this Court to designate the amicus as his in camera, ex parte counsel. This was required, the Applicant argued, because he was being excluded from part of his criminal trial by way of these ex parte proceedings. [28] The Attorney General opposed the Applicant’s request. According to the Respondent, the amicus is, and must remain, a friend and aide of the Court. This would not be possible, the Respondent submitted, if the amicus had obligations to both the Court and the Applicant. [29] I heard the Parties in regards to these submissions on May 7, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked the Parties to submit draft wording they wanted included in an Order clarifying the amicus’s appointment terms. I received submissions from both Parties. Despite originally indicating that he would not make submissions on the terms of his appointment, the amicus contacted the Court after reviewing these submissions to express concerns with one of the proposed terms of appointment, which would have prohibited any communication with counsel for the Applicant, even on matters unrelated to these proceedings. I agreed that was unnecessarily restrictive. [30] After considering all submissions, and after deliberating on the matter, I issued a further Order on May 24, 2019 outlining the amicus’s terms of appointment for the ex parte, in camera hearing on May 27 and 28, 2019. In this Order, I provided the amicus broad authority to represent the interests of justice and make arguments on the Applicant’s behalf. I did not, however, grant the Order in the words specifically requested by the Applicant. [31] The amicus proceeded per the terms of his appointment. I would note, as the Court of Appeal did at paragraph 37 of its public reasons, that despite the Applicant’s concerns regarding the wording of the amicus’s terms, there is no doubt that amicus served the interests of justice in the proceedings before this Court. The amicus fulfilled his role in a way that ensured the Applicant’s interests were properly and thoroughly considered in his absence and that of his counsel. B. Jurisdiction [32] As a further preliminary matter, this Court must also determine whether it has the jurisdiction to reconsider matters that the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld. At first impression, that is not obvious. [33] As noted above, in its June 1, 2018 judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court’s determinations with respect to the information to be disclosed, with the exception of one sentence of a summary related to the reconsideration direction. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal for the limited purpose of returning the file to the Designated Judge to assess pursuant to section 38 of the CEA and on the basis of further submissions and new evidence, whether |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| could be disclosed to Mr. Huang. In addition to that assessment, the Attorney General now asks this Court to reconsider provisions of its order that were upheld by the Court of Appeal. [34] The Attorney General’s position is that Rule 399(2)(a) provides the Court with the authority to vary its July 7, 2017 judgment, notwithstanding the subsequent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal upholding most of that order’s terms. At first impression, the amicus was of the view that the Federal Court was functus officio on matters that had subsequently been decided by the Federal Court of Appeal. Instead, the Attorney General’s motion for reconsideration would best be brought before the Federal Court of Appeal. [35] The Attorney General drew the Court’s attention to the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex, 2016 FCA 194 [AstraZeneca]. In that case, which arose from a patent infringement action, the trial judge, relying on Grenier v Canada, 2008 FCA 63 [Grenier], dismissed a motion to vary a judgment on the ground that when a judgment had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal, it was for that Court to vary the judgment: Apotex Inc v AstraZeneca Canada Inc, 2015 FC 799 at para 16. [36] On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that where a judgment has been upheld, any subsequent proceeding to vary the judgment under Rule 399 on newly discovered information should be brought before the original decision maker: AstraZeneca, at paras 17–20. Grenier, the Court of Appeal clarified, stands for the proposition that a trial court cannot correct a judgment it has rendered if it has been the subject of a judgment by the Court of Appeal. In Grenier, the Court was not required to consider the proper forum in which to bring a motion under Rule 399 and did not decide that issue. [37] This interpretation is consistent, the Court of Appeal noted at paragraph 21, with the position taken by the Ontario Courts in applying Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194: Mehedi v 2057161 Ontario Inc (Job Success), 2014 ONCA 604; Aristocrat v Aristocrat (2004), 73 OR (3d) 275, 190 OAC 327 (CA). [38] The question under Rule 399 is not whether the judgment ought to be set aside or varied because of an error in the judgment itself but because of matters discovered after the judgment was made. In such circumstances, any subsequent proceeding to set aside the judgment is properly brought in the trial court: AstraZeneca at para 22, citing Royal Trust Company v EM Jones (1961), [1962] SCR 132, 31 DLR (2d) 292. [39] In the result, I accept that, as the original decision maker, I am better positioned to determine whether or not to vary my decision and have the authority to do so under Rule 399. [40] I will now proceed to consider the motion to vary my judgment in DES-2-17, the reassessment and the fresh application under CEA section 38 in DES-4-19. IV. Motion to Vary [41] Rule 399(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules reads as follows: Setting aside or variance Annulation 399 (2) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order 399 (2) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier une ordonnance dans l’un ou l’autre des cas suivants : (a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order… a) des faits nouveaux sont survenus ou ont été découverts après que l’ordonnance a été rendue… [42] The Attorney General contends that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Court’s Private Judgment of July 7, 2017 are ambiguous. Paragraph 2 authorizes the disclosure of information set out in an attached Schedule “A” to the Applicant, Mr. Huang, his counsel and the ONSC. Paragraph 3 requires the Attorney General of Canada to provide fresh copies of the 2013 Affidavit to the Applicant’s counsel and the DPP, with the redactions lifted over the information ordered to be disclosed. Applicant’s Counsel and the DPP were authorized to share the revised copies of the 2013 Affidavit with the ONSC at their discretion. Mr. Huang is not mentioned specifically in paragraph 3. [43] The Attorney General submits that one interpretation of the Private Judgment is that they are not required to disclose the information to Mr. Huang, but only to his counsel and the DPP. Another interpretation, the Attorney General submits, is that the requirement to disclose includes disclosure to Mr. Huang. It is that which the Attorney General seeks to prevent on this motion. [44] The Attorney General contends that new matters that have arisen subsequent to the Private Judgment would allow the Court to vary or set aside those paragraphs in order to make it clear that the information contained in Schedule “A” and the fresh copies of the 2013 Affidavit would not be provided to Mr. Huang. Disclosure to his counsel would be conditional on their agreement not to share the information with Mr. Huang. [45] As the author, I can confidently assert that there is nothing in the 58 paragraphs of reasons that accompany the Private Judgment, or the 83 paragraphs of Public Reasons also issued in 2017, to support the proposition that it was the Court’s intent to limit the disclosure ordered to Mr. Huang’s counsel and to bar Mr. Huang from receiving it. Furthermore, in my view, there is no indication in the Federal Court of Appeal’s Public or Private Reasons that this was raised as a consideration before that Court. As I read those reasons, the Attorney General sought on the appeal to prevent disclosure to both Mr. Huang and his counsel, as well as to any other member of the public. [46] Notwithstanding the grounds of cross-appeal raised by the Applicant, this Court proceeded on the assumption in 2017, as it does now, that the PPSC was bound by the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Stinchcombe, above, which required disclosure to the accused of any relevant evidence in the Crown’s possession. As indicated at paragraphs 53–60 of my Public Reasons, I took into account the potential relevance of the content of the 2013 Affidavit and Warrant to the criminal proceedings. I concluded that much of the redacted information in the two documents would not be relevant to Mr. Huang’s defence. With regard to that information, the application for disclosure failed on the first branch of the Ribic test: Canada (Attorney General) v Ribic, 2003 FCA 246. However, I concluded, some of the information would be relevant to Mr. Huang’s challenge to the validity of the 2013 Warrant. [47] I then proceeded to consider whether disclosure of information I found to be relevant would be injurious to the three protected national interests – international relations, national defence and national security – under the second branch of Ribic. If I considered the information to be non-injurious, I ordered that it be disclosed. If injurious, I considered whether it should be protected on the ground that the public interest in preventing the injury would outweigh the public interest in disclosure, including Mr. Huang’s Stinchcombe disclosure rights, as required by the third stage of Ribic. The result of this analysis was set out in my Private Judgment including the attached Schedule “A”. [48] The specific relief sought by the Attorney General on this motion is to: (a) set aside or vary paragraphs 2, 3 and 9 of the Private Judgment and (b) set aside or vary the Court’s determinations set out in Schedule “A” to the Private Judgment |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [49] To grant a motion to set aside or vary an order under Rule 399(2)(a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order, three conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the new information must be a “matter” within the Rule’s meaning; (2) the “matter” must not have been discoverable before the making of the Order; and (3) the “matter” must have a determining influence on the decision: Ayangma v Canada, 2003 FCA 382 at para 3. [50] The word “matter” has broad import: Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 911 at para 16. It includes “an element of the relief sought as opposed to an argument raised before the Court”: Haque v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 188 FTR 154 at para 5, 98 ACWS (3d) 1081 (FC). The “matter” must be relevant to the facts giving rise to the original order: Procter & Gamble, above, at para 16. Jurisprudence, whether existing prior to or after the decision at issue, does not constitute a new matter: Siddiqui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 237 at paras 12–17. [51] The authority to reconsider is an exceptional power: Saywack v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 FC 189, 27 DLR (4th) 617 (FCA); Watson v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2002 FCT 610 (FC). Rule 399 cannot be used as a vehicle for revisiting judgments every time a change in the facts occurs: Zeneca Pharma Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (2000), 196 DLR (4th) 299, 10 CPR (4th) 146 (FCA). The policy of the law strongly favours finality of court orders to ensure the judicial process’ integrity: Nu-Pharm Inc v Canada (Attorney General) (1999), [2000] 1 FC 463, 179 DLR (4th) 531 (CA). [52] The Attorney General submits that there are two new matters that have arisen since the issuance of the July 2017 Private Judgment that relate to the facts considered at that time. One is |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| The second new matter is the order issued by Mr. Justice Dambrot of the ONSC on March 16, 2018 sealing the court files and excluding the public from the hearing of the Garofoli motion filed by Mr. Huang to exclude the intercept evidence at trial: R v Huang, 2018 ONSC 888. [53] In paragraphs 19 and 20 of my Private Judgment and Reasons, I addressed |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| I concluded at paragraph 20 that: |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [54] Disclosure |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| was argued before the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dealt with this question at paragraphs 53 to 55 of its Private Reasons for Judgment issued on June 1, 2018. The Court agreed with the conclusion that I had reached |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [55] The evidence and submissions tendered by the Attorney General on the motion to vary do not convince me that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| is a “new matter” that would have had a determining effect on the decision that I made in 2017. [56] At the initial hearing in DES-2-17, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| by a witness representing Global Affairs Canada (GAC). That witness, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| affirmed in his affidavit that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| was referring to the release of additional information beyond that pertaining to the fact of the interception of telephone communications at the PRC Embassy that had already been disclosed, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [57] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [58] On this motion, the Attorney General tendered the affidavit evidence and testimony of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [59] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [60] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [61] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [62] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [63] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [64] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||

Huang v. Canada (Attorney General)

Source text

Full judgment (source text)

R v Brown

Related cases

R v Brown

R v Beaver

R v Sharma

R v Cody

Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile) c. Ewen

R v Hart

Exam & revision prep

Huang v. Canada (Attorney General)

Source text

Full judgment (source text)

R v Brown

Related cases

R v Brown

R v Beaver

R v Sharma

R v Cody

Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile) c. Ewen

R v Hart

Exam & revision prep