Ontario (Provincial Police) v. Assessment Direct Inc.
The order determining whether seized materials were subject to litigation privilege was properly characterized as affecting enforcement or implementation of a Criminal Code search warrant and therefore was criminal in nature; consequently, no appeal lies to this court under the Courts of Justice Act and the appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 78
- Parties
- Applicant: The Ontario Provincial Police; Applicant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Assessment Direct Inc.; Respondent: Universal Injury Rehabilitation Centre Inc.; Respondent: Osler Rehabilitation Centre Inc.; Respondent: Metro Rehabilitation Centre Inc.; Respondent: Rouge Valley Rehabilitation Centre Inc.; Respondent: Publix Rehabilitation Centre Inc.; Referee: Erin Dann
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Order Affecting Enforcement of Search Warrant / Oral Hearing at Court of Appeal; Reasons Released Orally on January 18, 2018
- Outcome
- Appeal quashed
- Legal Topics
- Search and Seizure, Litigation Privilege, Appeal Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Search Warrants
- 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
The Ontario Provincial Police
Applicant
Her Majesty the Queen
Applicant
Assessment Direct Inc.
Respondent
Universal Injury Rehabilitation Centre Inc.
Respondent
Osler Rehabilitation Centre Inc.
Respondent
Metro Rehabilitation Centre Inc.
Respondent
Rouge Valley Rehabilitation Centre Inc.
Respondent
Publix Rehabilitation Centre Inc.
Respondent
Erin Dann
Referee
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Order Affecting Enforcement of Search Warrant / Oral Hearing at Court of Appeal; Reasons Released Orally on January 18, 2018
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether materials seized under a Criminal Code search warrant are subject to litigation privilege
- 2 Whether the order determining privilege is civil or criminal in nature
- 3 Whether an appeal to this court lies from an order affecting enforcement or implementation of a search warrant
Ratio Decidendi
The order determining whether seized materials were subject to litigation privilege was properly characterized as affecting enforcement or implementation of a Criminal Code search warrant and therefore was criminal in nature; consequently, no appeal lies to this court under the Courts of Justice Act and the appeal must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Appeal quashed
Orders
- Appeal quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ontario (Provincial Police) v. Assessment Direct Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-01-30 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 78 Docket numbers C64473, M48577, M48687 Judges Doherty, David H.; LaForme, Harry Smith; Paciocco, David M. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Ontario (Provincial Police) v. Assessment Direct Inc., 2018 ONCA 78 DATE: 20180130 DOCKET: M48577, M48687 (C64473) Doherty, LaForme and Paciocco JJ.A. BETWEEN The Ontario Provincial Police and Her Majesty the Queen Applicants and Assessment Direct Inc., Universal Injury Rehabilitation Centre Inc., Osler Rehabilitation Centre Inc., Metro Rehabilitation Centre Inc., Rouge Valley Rehabilitation Centre Inc. and Publix Rehabilitation Centre Inc. Respondents John Patton, for the applicants Richard Shekter and Karina Wong, for the respondents Erin Dann, for the referee Heard and released orally: January 18, 2018 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from an order of Nordheimer J. determining whether certain materials seized by the O.P.P. under a search warrant issued on the Criminal Code is subject to litigation privilege and therefore not potentially evidence in any criminal proceeding that might be undertaken. To this point in time, there have been no charges laid. [2] We note that in his order, Nordheimer J. made no declaratory order relating to the constitutionality of any statutory provision or any state conduct. [3] In our view, the order is properly characterized as affecting the enforcement or implementation of the search warrant. The search warrant is a judicial order made on an ex parte application brought under the Criminal Code pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation. In our view, judicial orders that are directed at the enforcement or implementation of a criminal order are themselves criminal in nature. [4] No appeal lies to this court in a criminal proceeding under the Courts of Justice Act. The appeal must be quashed. “Doherty J.A.” “H.S. LaForme J.A.” “David M. Paciocco J.A.”