On Production of Records, Immunities of International Organizations and the Global Fight against Cor
This week's featured full length paper is Dmytro Galagan's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in World Bank Group v Wallace, 2016 SCC 15,  1 SCR 20 7. The case is a complex but important decision that raises issues of doctrine pertaining to important evidentiary concepts including compelling appearance of foreign international corporate actors, archival and personnel immunities, interception of communications, wiretap evidence, document production in complex corporate legal matters and clarity on Garofoli applications. The case involved charges pursuant to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act . In this morass of a case context, Galagan's insightful paper provides a cogent explication of the case and a powerful critical reading of the decision. We reproduce the abstract below:
"On 29 April 2016, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in World Bank Group v Wallace, an unusual case in which persons charged with corruption of foreign public officials applied to a Canadian court for production of documents in possession of an international organization. This decision is of great importance for Canadian law for two reasons. First, it discusses the privileges and immunities of international organizations against compulsory production of documents in criminal cases. Second, it sets the relevant test for assessing applications for O’Connor third-party production orders brought within a challenge to a wiretap authorization under the Garofoli framework. [I] argue that the Court correctly interpreted the provisions of the World Bank Group’s governing documents on archival and personnel immunity in accordance with general principles of treaty interpretation, but did not take an opportunity to balance these immunities and assess their waiver against the accused’s right to make a full answer and defense. The Court also followed its previous jurisprudence on challenges to wiretap authorizations and production of documents by third parties. Furthermore, [ I] suggest the Court’s reasoning was largely influenced by policy considerations, such as promotion of international cooperation and strengthening of Canada’s role in the global fight against corruption."