The Direction reiterates that the Service is bound by the duties of candour and utmost good faith and notes that the evidence as disclosed to that point suggested that the non-disclosure reported in the January 18 letter may be symptomatic of systemic failings within the Service and the Department of Justice. [...] Nor did the Service or the Page: 24 TOP SECRET NSLAG provide SIRC the June 2015 opinion in response to the recommendation that the Service clarify the availability of the Crown immunity doctrine. [...] NSLAG counsel advised in October 2015 that the Department of Justice maintains that the Service “may rely” on Crown immunity, with the caveats relating to the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of the doctrine and the “medium to low chance” of success should the matter be reviewed by a court. [...] One of the opinions notes that that the reliability or value of the information to be collected “does not affect the legal analysis.” [69] Despite the absence of legal authority to conduct the activity, the bottom line legal assessment in each case is that the activities constitute a “high legal risk.” In each instance, the Director of the Service approved the proposed operations. [...] The Senior General Counsel of the NSLAG, the Deputy Director Operations, the Assistant Director Operations, the Assistant Director Collection, the Director General of the Operations Branch seeking the warrant, and a senior representative from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada sit on the Warrant Review Committee.
- Pages
- 151
- Published in
- Canada
