R. v. Rudolph

R. v. Rudolph

Judge found police and Crown breached s.7 and s.8 by obtaining and using a lawyer’s statement and seizing lawyer materials without complying with Lavallee safeguards; the Crown’s proposed after-the-fact vetting/voir-dire is constitutionally impermissible because the state has already seen and used the material; no alternative remedy can cure the prejudice or restore the integrity of the process; applying Babos the breaches are irremediable and a stay of proceedings is required.

Citation
2017 NSSC 334
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant/applicant: Douglas George Rudolph; Defendant/applicant: Peter Arthur Donaldson Mill
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fraud (s.380 Criminal Code); Charter Application / Pre Trial Remedy Hearing (charter Remedy for S.7 and S.8 Breaches)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings ordered
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Privilege, Lavallee Process, Section 7 Charter, Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Remedy, Stay of Proceedings, Search and Seizure, Disclosure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Professional Responsibility Administrative Law Solicitor Client Privilege Lavallee Process Section 7 Charter +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecutor

Douglas George Rudolph

Defendant/applicant

Peter Arthur Donaldson Mill

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fraud (s.380 Criminal Code); Charter Application / Pre Trial Remedy Hearing (charter Remedy for S.7 and S.8 Breaches)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police and Crown breached solicitor-client privilege by obtaining and using a lawyer’s statement and by seizing lawyer materials without a Lavallee process
  2. 2 Whether the Crown’s proposed after-the-fact vetting/review of presumptively privileged material is constitutionally permissible
  3. 3 Whether the crime exception rebuts solicitor-client privilege and, if so, when and by what process that must be determined

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found police and Crown breached s.7 and s.8 by obtaining and using a lawyer’s statement and seizing lawyer materials without complying with Lavallee safeguards; the Crown’s proposed after-the-fact vetting/voir-dire is constitutionally impermissible because the state has already seen and used the material; no alternative remedy can cure the prejudice or restore the integrity of the process; applying Babos the breaches are irremediable and a stay of proceedings is required.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings ordered

Orders

  • Proceedings permanently stayed against Douglas George Rudolph and Peter Arthur Donaldson Mill (stay of prosecution ordered)