麻豆视频

The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling involving the Edmonton Police Service and the disclosure of a police officer’s past misconduct may seem like a routine legal decision. But it’s a wake-up call for how our justice system handles complex cases involving national security, transnational crime and terrorism.

The case involved an officer whose past disciplinary records—officially expunged—were requested by defence counsel to challenge the officer’s credibility in court. At the heart of the case is a question: Should old or expunged police disciplinary records be shared with defence lawyers, even if they’ve been legally wiped clean (meaning they are no longer part of the officer’s record)? The court said yes, arguing that all relevant information must be available so accused individuals can defend themselves fully and fairly.

That’s a principle I support. Our legal system is built on fairness. But when applied too broadly or without clear limits, this rule can be exploited, particularly by sophisticated criminals or hostile foreign actors who know how to manipulate the system from within.

As someone who has spent decades in military, law enforcement and intelligence roles, and now advises on threats like organized crime, terrorism and foreign interference, I’ve seen firsthand how procedural rights can be turned into tactical weapons.

This isn’t just a hypothetical concern. Consider R. v. Jordan, a landmark Supreme Court decision. It was meant to address delays in the justice system and ensure timely trials. But it also imposed strict deadlines—18 months for provincial court cases and 30 months for superior court. If a trial exceeds these limits, charges can be stayed, no matter how serious the offence.

Now imagine combining that rule with a demand to disclose every piece of police history—even records long since cleared. Defence lawyers can flood the system with disclosure motions, many irrelevant, to stall proceedings. Once the clock runs out, the case may be tossed.

When cases involve national security, terrorism or organized crime, that’s not just a legal loophole; it’s a threat to public safety.

So how do we protect the integrity of the courtroom without allowing bad actors to exploit it? Here are four practical steps:

1. Give judges more discretion
   Judges need stronger authority to reject disclosure requests clearly aimed at delay. If the information doesn’t materially affect the case, it shouldn’t stall proceedings. This would prevent misuse before it starts.
2. Create clear rules for national security cases
   Cases involving terrorism, organized crime or foreign interference may require tailored procedures. This could include special handling of sensitive intelligence or even dedicated national security courts—models already used in the U.S. and U.K.
3. Modernize disclosure laws
   Parliament should review disclosure rules and introduce carve-outs where full disclosure could do more harm than good, especially when intelligence sources or foreign threats are involved. These changes must still protect the rights of the accused but recognize the stakes.
4. Set boundaries around expunged records
   If a police officer’s record has been legally cleared, there must be strict limits on when that information can be revived. Otherwise, the concept of a clean slate loses meaning and public trust in the disciplinary process erodes.

The bigger picture is this: our justice system must evolve to meet the realities of a world where lawfare—the strategic use of legal processes to disrupt democratic institutions—is a growing threat. Hostile governments, cartels and cybercriminals don’t follow the rules, but they’re increasingly adept at weaponizing ours.

Striking a balance doesn’t mean choosing between fairness and security. It means modernizing our legal framework so that justice remains principled and resilient in the face of today’s threats.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is both fair and fit for purpose in today’s world.

Scott McGregor is managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He co-authored

©

The commentaries offered on 麻豆视频.ca are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any 麻豆视频.ca staff.