Canada: Informer Privilege And An Illustration Of Illegitimate Delay

Last Updated: June 19 2019
Article by Christopher J. Somerville

As part of his private practice, the author represents the Ontario Association of Crime Stoppers. However, the views expressed in this article are his own. He gratefully acknowledges the feedback of Robert Gill of Clay & Company, who is counsel to the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association, as well as that of Mabel Lai, Crown Counsel.

On May 6, 2005, former Edmonton police detective Ross Barros arranged an important meeting with detectives Kevin Brezinski and Kelly Krewenchuk. Barros had recently left policing to become a private investigator. One of his clients was Sid Tarrabain, a lawyer defending Irfan Qureshi on charges of drug trafficking. Barros decided to investigate the identity of an informer who allegedly tipped the police on Qureshi. The lead officer in the Qureshi investigation was Detective Brezinski.

The morning of May 6, Brezinski and Krewenchuk were scheduled to golf together but made time to see Barros before their game. When they sat down with him at the clubhouse, Barros told them he had identified the informer. The conversation ended Barros's friendship with Brezinski, who once saw Barros as a mentor. It also resulted in charges against Barros for extortion and obstruction of justice.

Barros was fully acquitted in both a first trial in 2007 and a retrial in 2015. The retrial followed Barros's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Binnie J., writing for the majority, made the following observations in directing a new trial on two of the three counts:

The duty to protect and enforce informer privilege rests on the police, the Crown, and the courts [...] From the perspective of an accused, discovery of the identity of a source, and the circumstances under which his or her information was obtained by the police, may legitimately play a role in making out a full answer and defence.1

Barros had undertaken his own investigation to determine the informant's identity. But when may an accused legitimately seek the court's assistance in pursuing inquiries that will likely identify a confidential informer? And what should be the consequences of seeking this assistance at the wrong time? In this article, I propose to answer these questions from a complementary reading of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in R. v. Brassington and R. v. Cody.2

Informer privilege and R. v. Brassington

My short answer to the first question is that it is never legitimate for an accused to bring any type of court proceeding to identify anyone protected by informer privilege unless this is the only way to stop a wrongful conviction.

Like solicitor-client privilege, informer privilege is a common-law class privilege. It arises when the police explicitly or implicitly promise confidentiality to a source in exchange for information, provided the information is not given to further criminal activity or interfere with the administration of justice.3 Judges have no discretion to vary this privilege unless a criminal accused shows that they cannot raise a reasonable doubt without identifying the informer.

Informer privilege has enjoyed this protection for centuries.4 Informers play an essential role in the investigation and prosecution of crime, but doing so makes them vulnerable to often horrific reprisal if their identity is revealed. Informants' willingness to participate in the justice system depends on their confidence that the system will protect them.

Challenges to this protection should not be decided on a case-by-case basis. This is why "innocence at stake" is the only exception to informer privilege. The only goal more important than protecting confidential police informers is protecting innocent persons from losing their freedom by way of a wrongful conviction.

However, as Brassington shows, innocence at stake is a last resort, not a shortcut to plea bargains or withdrawals of charges. In my reading, Brassington confirms that the only legitimate process for an accused to raise innocence at stake is to bring a McClure application at the close of the Crown's case at trial.

Like Barros, Brassington also involved former police officers charged with obstruction of justice (and other offences; the specific allegations remain subject to a publication ban). The issue on appeal was whether the officers could discuss information with their counsel that might reveal the identity of confidential informers. The officers brought an application to permit this, not relying on innocence at stake but rather on their need to properly instruct counsel and the possibility that privileged information may be relevant to their defence. The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the application, which the Court of Appeal refused to reconsider on jurisdictional grounds.

The Supreme Court of Canada began its analysis by distinguishing between defence attempts to properly define the scope of informer privilege and attempts to "pierce" it. Defining the scope does not engage innocence at stake because the accused is not seeking access to privileged information, only to receive what is not privileged. Brassington involved piercing because the officers, who are bound by informer privilege, wished to disclose privileged information to their counsel, who are not bound by the privilege (as stated in Barros).

The Court then moved to the appropriate process for piercing the privilege based on its previous decisions in R. v. McClure and R. v. Brown.5 The process involves two threshold questions, followed by a two-step innocence at stake test. At all stages of the process, the burden rests on the accused on a balance of probabilities.6

The two threshold questions are:

  1. Can the accused obtain the information they are seeking from any other source that is not privileged?
  2. Is there any way for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt without the information they want?

To move forward, the accused must show that both answers are no; otherwise, the inquiry goes no further. At this point, even the judge has not reviewed the privileged information.

If the accused passes the two threshold questions, they move on to the first branch of the innocence at stake test (or the third step of the overall process):

  1. Can the accused demonstrate an evidentiary basis to conclude that a privileged communication exists that could raise a reasonable doubt?

Again, if the accused cannot do this, the inquiry ends, and the judge still has not reviewed the privileged information. It is only if the accused produces this evidence that the judge will then examine the privileged information on an in camera basis in the absence of the accused and their counsel, to consider the second branch of the innocence at stake test, which is the fourth and final step of the overall process:

  1. Will the privileged communication likely raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused?

The judge will produce the privileged communication to the accused only when satisfied that it is more likely than not to raise reasonable doubt. Even at this stage, the judge will not produce any more than necessary to raise reasonable doubt.

The reason to delay this lengthy process until the end of the Crown's case is to completely avoid it if the Crown has failed to prove its case by that time.7 This is essential not only to avoid needlessly violating the privilege, as the Court stated in Brown, but also for ensuring that criminal cases and trials themselves proceed expeditiously and in keeping with section 11(b) of the Charter.

This returns to the second question posed earlier. What consequences should result from an accused raising innocence at stake before the end of the Crown's case at trial?

R. v. Cody and an example of illegitimate delay

The well-known R. v. Jordan8 and Cody decisions respectively established and reaffirmed the 18- and 30-month ceilings for provincial and superior court cases during which the accused must be tried and beyond which they are presumptively entitled to a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

Cody also raised the concept of "illegitimate" delay when the accused directly prolongs the proceeding for reasons that do not respond to their charges.9 Under the Jordan and Cody framework, any time attributable to this illegitimate delay will be excluded from the 18- or 30-month ceilings. As a general instance of this, the Supreme Court referred to frivolous applications and requests by the accused.

I suggest that, following Brassington, any attempt by an accused to access informer privileged information short of bringing a McClure application at the close of the Crown's case at trial should be considered illegitimate delay. An even more specific scenario illustrates how this can happen.

In 2016, the Ontario Superior Court released R. v. McKenzie,10 which clarified the scope of the "investigative file" that an accused is entitled to review in a Garofoli application to challenge a search warrant. Under McKenzie, the investigative file will include any information that an investigating officer reviewed in swearing the information to obtain, including information received from a confidential informer. Based on R. v. Stinchcombe,11 the Superior Court decided that this information should be redacted for informer privilege and then shared with the accused, with the judge having jurisdiction to review the complete information to confirm that the Crown's redactions are proper.

But what if the officer reviewed a confidential tip from an anonymous source? Must this be redacted and shared with the accused as well? McKenzie did not consider the impact of anonymity, but in R. v. Leipert,12 the Supreme Court did and ruled that an anonymous tip should never be disclosed to an accused unless innocence is at stake, even in redacted form, because the anonymous nature of the source makes it impossible to know what details in the tip information will reveal the identity of the source and thus compromise informer privilege.13

Following McKenzie, the accused has an understandable and justifiable interest in accessing any and all information supporting a search warrant. But this has its limits, and informer privilege is one of them. Brassington stands for the principle that no attempt to "pierce" informer privilege should be made until all other defence approaches to raising reasonable doubt have been exhausted. Following Brassington, if one of the items reviewed in preparing an information to obtain is an anonymous tip, any attempt by an accused to obtain this tip, even in redacted form, should be considered illegitimate delay unless sought by way of a McClure application at the close of the Crown's case at trial.

The costs of full answer and defence

Cody has attracted some criticism from the defence bar for its concept of illegitimate defence delay.14 As Cody explains, "illegitimate" does not necessarily amount to professional or ethical misconduct on the part of defence counsel. As noted in Barros, it is not a crime for the accused or their agents to identify a confidential informer. Aren't such measures simply instances of the accused exercising their right to make full answer and defence and thus undeserving of stigma?

The problem is that the right to make full answer and defence is not the only value that our justice system protects. As Brassington shows, informer privilege can limit that right. Even the section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time requires responsibly exercising the right to make full answer and defence without causing unreasonable delay. When taking this right too far contributes to the culture of delay that Jordan spoke so strongly against, there must be a correction. Defence conduct may be legal, professional and ethical, and yet illegitimate when balanced against the many values our legal system must uphold.

An analogous concept from the civil justice system is the costs regime. The discretion of judges to award costs for illegitimate motions or other tactics in civil cases plays an essential role in applying some control on the incentives of litigants. Under Jordan and Cody, time is the most valuable currency of the criminal justice system. There should be consequences for spending it unnecessarily, especially when done at the expense of protecting confidential informers.


1. R v Barros, [2011] 3 SCR 368 at para 37 [Barros]. The decision on the retrial is reported at R v Barros, 2016 ABQB 243.

2. 2018 SCC 37 [Brassington] and [2017] 1 SCR 659 [Cody].

3. R v Durham Regional Crime Stoppers Inc, [2017] 2 SCR 157 at paras 11 and 22.

4. In Barros, supra note 1 at para 28, the Supreme Court dated the origins of this protection to The Trial of Thomas Hardy for High Treason (1794) 24 St Tr 199.

5. [2001] 1 SCR 445 [McClure] and [2002] 2 SCR 185 [Brown].

6. Brown, ibid at para 56.

7. Ibid at para 52.

8. [2016] 1 SCR 631.

9. Cody, supra note 2 at para 30.

10. 2016 ONSC 242.

11. [1991] 3 SCR 326.

12. [1997] 1 SCR 281.

13. Ibid at paras 28–32.

14. See eg Matthew Gourlay, "SCC Took Danger to Heart in Groia," 2 July 2018, Law Times; online: (

Originally published by The Advocates' Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions