Quebec court alarmed public by improperly using term 'secret trial,' Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling Friday admonishing the Quebec Court of Appeal for "misguidedly" accusing a lower court of holding a secret trial when "no secret trial was held in this case."

In a unanimous decision, all nine justices on Canada's top court said "the very concept of 'secret trial' does not exist in Canada."

"That expression could in fact have suggested that [an unnamed person] had been convicted following a secret criminal proceeding," the ruling said.

"That state of affairs alarmed the public and the media. It also jeopardized public confidence in the justice system."

The case involves a police informer who was charged with criminal offences related to a crime they were helping police investigate.

In an effort to keep the informant's identity secret, process mistakes were made in the initial trial and then later "misguidedly denounced" by the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court said Friday. 

The case began sometime before 2022, when the unnamed police informer first appeared in court to answer charges against them. At that first appearance, the informant's lawyer brought forward a motion asking the court to stay the proceedings. The motion said the state had engaged in abusive conduct in laying the charges and the case had taken too long to come to trial.

In order to protect the anonymity of the informant, the judge hearing the case ordered that the trial be moved in camera. No notice was given to the media. The motion, exhibits and transcripts remained confidential and were not listed on any court docket.

When the judge dismissed the motion and convicted the police informant, the judgment was given no file number and was not made public.

The case only re-emerged on the public record when the Quebec Court of Appeal stayed the conviction in February 2022, ruling that there was an abuse of process by the state.

The Quebec Court of Appeal published its judgment but accompanied it with a sealing order that blacked out any information that could identify the informant.

In March 2022, the court released a redacted version of the ruling that was highly critical of the decision to pursue  charges in the first place. But what grabbed everyone's attention was the court's stark criticism of the secrecy surrounding the original trial.

"No formal number appears on the trial judge's detailed judgment, the witnesses were questioned out of court, the parties asked the judge to decide on the basis of the transcripts, in a secret hearing, and the judgment was kept secret," the ruling said.

"In short, no trace of this trial exists, except in the memories of the individuals involved."