Disclosure

R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal / Evidence / Crown's duty to disclose)
The accused was convicted on multiple drug charges.  The arresting officer was the Crown's main witness.  After conviction but before sentencing, the accused learned that the arresting officer had been charged criminally for drug-related offences.  The Court of Appeal ordered police files related to the charges against the arresting officer to be produced.  The arresting officer ultimately pleaded guilty, evidence of that conviction was admitted on the accused's appeal, and the accused's convictions were set aside.  The Supreme Court heard the case despite it being moot.  The Court held that the Crown's obligation to disclose all relevant information extends to police misconduct files that could reasonably impact on the case against the accused.  The Court also noted that relevant information should usually be disclosed by third parties, subject to court restrictions to guard privacy concerns.
Majority/Dissent: 8/0

In R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada made it a requirement for Crown prosecutors to disclose to a person charged with a criminal offense all relevant information about their criminal charge - whether or not the Crown intends to introduce it into evidence and whether or not it tends to prove that the accused is guilty or not guilty. Generally, Crown will provide an accused with a disclosure package at their initial appearance, or shortly afterwards.

While the disclosure package usually meets the requirements in R. v. Stinchcombe, for whatever reason, important information is sometimes omitted which could affect an accused’s chances of being acquitted at trial. That’s why it is important to review the Crown disclosure package carefully to see if anything is missing. Look for omitted page numbers, police reports, and witness or complainant statements.

Even if nothing is obviously missing, you may want to write what’s known as a Stinchcombe Letter to the Crown Counsel office asking for further disclosure. The following is an example of some disclosure requests commonly made in a Stinchcombe letter:

Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Constitutional / Charter of Rights)
K is a Canadian who has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since 2002.  In 2003, Canadian authorities questioned K in Guantanamo Bay on topics related to the charges K is now facing.  Some of this interview material was subsequently turned over to US officials.  After charges were laid against him, K sought access to the information Canadian officials had obtained about him.  The Court held that the Charter applies in this case, since Canadian officials participated in a process that violated Canada's international obligations.  The Crown is required to disclose the information in question, subject to claims for privilege and immunity that will be decided by the Federal Court.
Majority/Dissent: 9/0