L'inventaire de type Laporte est un outil que la Cour peut ordonner à la Poursuite de produire, à sa discrétion

R v Anderson, 2013 SKCA 92

Lien vers la décision

[95]   In R. v. Chaplin, 1995 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727, the Court set out the procedure to be followed by a reviewing judge when the Crown refuses to disclose material.  The Court explained:

25        In situations in which the existence of certain information has been identified, then the Crown must justify non-disclosure by demonstrating either that the information sought is beyond its control, or that it is clearly irrelevant or privileged. The trial judge must afford the Crown an opportunity to call evidence to justify such allegation of non-disclosure. As noted in R. v. Stinchcombe, supra, at p. 341:

This may require not only submissions but the inspection of statements and other documents and indeed, in some cases, viva voce evidence. A voir dire will frequently be the appropriate procedure in which to deal with these matters.

[96]   The process outlined in Laporte is not inconsistent with Chaplin.  Chaplin does not require an inventory to be produced.  The Crown simply has to justify non-disclosure.  The manner in which this is done will vary depending on the case.  In some cases the judge may just inspect the disputed material and in others the submissions of counsel in the absence of a list may suffice.

[97]   In my view, a Laporte inventory is no more than suggested by Sherstobitoff J.A.:  a practical suggestion to assist counsel and the court on a review of the Crown’s obligation to disclose.  It is a tool that a trial judge may, in his discretion, use to help determine whether the Crown has met its disclosure obligations but he is not obliged to order one in every case.  The Crown is not legally obligated to provide one in every case or to provide one upon the request of the defence.  That said, the Crown may choose to provide it, nevertheless, because it assists the review process.

[98]   The trial judge concluded that a type of Laporte inventory had been provided and achieved the goals of such a document.  Of interest is the reference by the trial judge to the Laporte inventory in the context of the delay decision:

108      The revised Laporte inventory (Exhibit P-3), provided by the Crown on April 29, 2011 was exhaustively examined by the Court. Eventually, after several hours of tediously reviewing the documentation in open court, the defence eventually conceded that the vetted and withheld material outlined in the Laporte inventory was with two exceptions, appropriate. The two points in contention were resolved in favour of the Crown.

Whatever the document could be called, it was helpful to counsel and the Court as part of the review process.