THOMSON NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. CANADA (DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH), CCH DRS 1990 P56-373, S.C.C. from O. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425 Court File No. 20228 Supreme Court of Canada from ONTARIO (Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubйй, Sopinka JJ.) March 29, 1990

Charter rights —— Anti-Combines law —— Compelled testimony before Commission and production of documents —— Whether Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure applied to prevent order for production of documents —— Whether compelled testimony of corporate officers violating principles of fundamental justice —— Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8 —— Combines Investigation Act, ss. 17, 34.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal [86 DRS paragraph 26-410] respecting the constitutionality of s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act. The appellant corporation and several of its officers were served with orders under the Combines Investigation Act to appear to be examined under oath and to produce documents connected with an inquiry into the appellant's activities to determine if the appellant had committed the offence of predatory pricing. The appellants sought a declaration from the Ontario High Court of Justice that the orders violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The High Court held that the orders compelling the production of documents violated s. 8 of the Charter but not s. 7. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and held that the order under s. 17 of the Combines Investigation Act to compel production of documents or to appear before the Commission did not violate either s. 7 or s. 8 of the Charter.

HELD: one diss. : The appeal was dismissed. The Charter guarantee against unreasonable search or seizure was not violated by the order to produce documents or the order to appear for examination under oath. The regulatory nature of the Combines Investigation Act did not give rise to the traditional "true" or "real" crimes that entailed moral stigma and reprimand. The nature of the statute was investigative and it sought to determine if a crime had been committed rather than who perpetrated the crime. Accordingly, a protective attitude against such investigations would prohibit the investigation of the offences and render the statute inoperative. The Charter guarantee of the right to be free from the deprivation of life, liberty and security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice was not violated by the compelling of oral testimony under s. 17 of the Combines investigation Act. The right of an accused to remain silent clearly extended beyond the trial process itself. However, such right did not extend to inquisitorial investigations such as that before the Commission established under the Combines Investigation Act. To allow the only persons with information respecting the actions of the companies in question to refuse to answer on the grounds that they were protected from self-incrimination would render the legislation inoperative. Although the compelled testimony could not be used against an accused in a subsequent prosecution, the derivative evidence obtained as a result of the compelled testimony would be admissible against an accused without violation of the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, complete immunity from compelled testimony was not required under the principles of fundamental justice.