Application judge appropriately limited scope of order to protect privacy interests

Supreme court | Interception of Private Communications

PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Application judge appropriately limited scope of order to protect privacy interests

Competition Bureau obtained judicial authorizations to intercept private communications in price-fixing investigation. Respondents filed class action lawsuit relating to alleged price-fixing. Application judge ordered disclosure of intercepted communications to respondents. Application judge ordered screening of communications before disclosure to protect privacy of third parties. Court of Appeal dismissed application for leave to appeal. Appeal dismissed. Neither Competition Act nor Criminal Code precluded disclosure of intercepted communications in civil proceedings. Application judge appropriately limited scope of order to protect privacy interests.
Jacques c. Pétroles Irving inc. (Oct. 17, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel J., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., and Wagner J., File No. 35226, 35231) Decision at 110 W.C.B. (2d) 184 was affirmed.  116 W.C.B. (2d) 618.

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Legal aid investments save governments money all over the world, Canadian researchers find

New real estate law podcast begins by tackling cannabis regulations

80% of legal employers prefer technical skills to personality

Torys’ Linda Plumpton named to American College of Trial Lawyers

Pressure mounts for immigration lawyers working with Latin American clients

$100K prize offered by Canadian legal tech start-up

Most Read Articles

OPP charges former tax lawyer with fraud and obstruction of justice

New facets of pure economic loss rule could have huge implications for businesses

Does solicitor-client privilege protect information shared with a legal app?

Court addresses the denial of dependent support for egregious conduct