R. v. Gruenke
Encyclopedia
R. v. Gruenke [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on privilege
. The Court developed a case-by-case test for determining if a communication is privileged. Prior to the test, only communications that fell into one of narrow set of privilege classes could gain protection from being submitted in a court of law.
Two days after the murder, a counselor who had been talking to Gruenke prior to the murder went to a local church and told the pastor there of Gruenke's intention to commit the murder.
At trial the conversation between the counselor and pastor was admitted and proved sufficient to convict Gruenke.
Lamer C.J., writing for the majority, noted that Canadian law does not recognize privilege in religious communications; however, there may be situations where such a privilege may be required.
To accommodate this need the Court adopted a four-step test proposed by American jurist John Henry Wigmore
to determine whether privilege is required.
In application to the facts of the case, Lamer found that they did not meet the requirements of the Wigmore test and so the communication was not privileged.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on privilege
Privilege
A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth...
. The Court developed a case-by-case test for determining if a communication is privileged. Prior to the test, only communications that fell into one of narrow set of privilege classes could gain protection from being submitted in a court of law.
Background
Adele Rosemary Gruenke was a 22 year-old reflexologist (a type of therapy similar to acupressure). Philip Barnett, an 82 year-old friend and client of Gruenke, had loaned her a significant amount of money including money to start a reflexology clinic. They lived together for a time in a platonic relationship - he had even put her in his will - until he began to make advances to her, at which point she moved home with her mother. Barnett's advances became more aggressive, to the point where she and her boyfriend plotted to kill him. One night in November 1986, she met with Barnett in his car and a fight broke out. She and her boyfriend beat Barnett to death.Two days after the murder, a counselor who had been talking to Gruenke prior to the murder went to a local church and told the pastor there of Gruenke's intention to commit the murder.
At trial the conversation between the counselor and pastor was admitted and proved sufficient to convict Gruenke.
Opinion of the Court
The Court found that the trial judge was correct in admitting the evidence.Lamer C.J., writing for the majority, noted that Canadian law does not recognize privilege in religious communications; however, there may be situations where such a privilege may be required.
To accommodate this need the Court adopted a four-step test proposed by American jurist John Henry Wigmore
John Henry Wigmore
John Henry Wigmore was a U.S. jurist and expert in the law of evidence. After teaching law at Keio University in Tokyo , he was the dean of Northwestern Law School...
to determine whether privilege is required.
- the communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed;
- this element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties;
- the relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered; and
- the injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation.
In application to the facts of the case, Lamer found that they did not meet the requirements of the Wigmore test and so the communication was not privileged.