R. v. Bath

R. v. Bath

The DOJ opinion is protected by solicitor-client privilege; CRA did not waive privilege by referencing receipt of legal advice in its April 1999 policy nor is there evidence the opinion was disclosed in prior proceedings; disclosure is not required for full answer and defence because the opinion is unlikely to provide unique or necessary material to support the s.24(2) application and the defence can rely on public law and witness evidence; therefore disclosure is denied.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1853
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Regina; Accused: Sikander Singh Bath; Accused: Manjit Singh Khangura
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal GST Fraud Investigation Involving Charter Issues / Voir Dire on S.24(2) Charter Application for Exclusion of Evidence (oral Ruling)
Outcome
Application for disclosure of William Corbett Q.C.'s legal opinion dismissed
Legal Topics
S.24(2) Charter Exclusion, Waiver of Privilege, Full Answer and Defence, Letters of Requirement/third Party Production, Government Legal Advice Vs Policy Advice
Source Language
English
Constitutional/charter Solicitor Client Privilege Administrative Law Criminal Procedure Tax Law S.24(2) Charter Exclusion Waiver of Privilege Full Answer and Defence +2 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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/prosecution

Sikander Singh Bath

Accused

Manjit Singh Khangura

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal GST Fraud Investigation Involving Charter Issues / Voir Dire on S.24(2) Charter Application for Exclusion of Evidence (oral Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department of Justice opinion of William Corbett Q.C. is protected by solicitor-client privilege
  2. 2 Whether the Canada Revenue Agency waived solicitor-client privilege over that opinion
  3. 3 Whether disclosure of the opinion is necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence thus overcoming privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The DOJ opinion is protected by solicitor-client privilege; CRA did not waive privilege by referencing receipt of legal advice in its April 1999 policy nor is there evidence the opinion was disclosed in prior proceedings; disclosure is not required for full answer and defence because the opinion is unlikely to provide unique or necessary material to support the s.24(2) application and the defence can rely on public law and witness evidence; therefore disclosure is denied.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure of William Corbett Q.C.'s legal opinion dismissed

Orders

  • Disclosure of the Department of Justice legal opinion of William Corbett Q.C. to the accused is denied