R. v. Piersanti & Company
The warrant was quashed because the issuing justice did not attach adequate terms of execution to protect solicitor-client confidentiality as required by Descoteaux; consequently the warrant was invalid, but the Crown was permitted a limited 20-day retention of the sealed documents to apply for a new warrant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C33916
- Parties
- Appellant: Piersanti & Company; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 December 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Order Dated February 29, 2000
- Outcome
- Warrant quashed; Crown permitted to retain seized documents for 20 days to apply for a new search warrant; seized documents to remain sealed in the interim.
- Legal Topics
- Search Warrant, Law Office Search, Privilege, S. 488.1 Criminal Code, Descoteaux V. Mierzwinski
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Piersanti & Company
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Order Dated February 29, 2000
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the issuing justice considered solicitor-client privilege when authorizing the search
- 2 Whether the warrant contained appropriate terms of execution to protect client confidentiality as required by Descoteaux
- 3 Whether the warrant must be quashed for failure to protect privilege
Ratio Decidendi
The warrant was quashed because the issuing justice did not attach adequate terms of execution to protect solicitor-client confidentiality as required by Descoteaux; consequently the warrant was invalid, but the Crown was permitted a limited 20-day retention of the sealed documents to apply for a new warrant.
Court Disposition
Warrant quashed; Crown permitted to retain seized documents for 20 days to apply for a new search warrant; seized documents to remain sealed in the interim.
Orders
- Warrant quashed.
- Crown entitled to retain the documents in its possession for 20 days to apply for a new search warrant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Piersanti & Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-12-04 Docket numbers C33916 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; MacPherson, James C.; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20001222 DOCKET: C33916 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: PIERSANTI & COMPANY (Appellant) - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) BEFORE: MOLDAVER, MacPHERSON and SIMMONS JJ.A. COUNSEL: V. Ross Morrison For the appellant Peter De Freitas For the respondent HEARD: December 20, 2000 On appeal from the order of Justice Michael R. Dambrot dated February 29, 2000. ENDORSEMENT [1] We are not persuaded that the issuing justice failed to turn his mind to the question of whether the items to be seized were privileged. We are, however, satisfied that he failed to attach terms of execution to the warrant designed to protect the right to confidentiality of the lawyer's clients as much as possible. [2] Because s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code has been found to be unconstitutional, the procedures to be followed when issuing a search warrant in connection with a law office are those set forth in Descoteaux v. Mierzwinski (1982), 70 C.C.C. (2d) 385 (S.C.C.). As Justice Lamer pointed out at p.414 of that decision, the issuing justice "must in any event attach terms of execution to the warrant designed to protect the right to confidentiality of the lawyer's clients as much as possible." [3] It follows, in our view, that the warrant must be quashed. However, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, the Crown shall be entitled to retain the documents in its possession for 20 days in order to apply for a new search warrant. The documents will of course remain sealed in the interim. "M.J. Moldaver J.A." "J.C. MacPherson J.A." "J. Simmons J.A."