Digital Brain
digital brain
digital brain

Foreign Corruption: Canada’s Top Court Shields Top Bank and Whistleblowers

July 2016 Litigation/Anti-Corruption Bulletin 3 minute read

A recent unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC“) delivered a significant legal victory for international institutions in the fight against corruption, upholding legal immunities which protect the World Bank’s records and personnel from the reach of Canadian legal proceedings.

The case of World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, arose from the prosecution of four individuals under Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA“) in relation to alleged bribery of government officials in Bangladesh. The CFPOA was strengthened in 2012 and the Canadian authorities have significantly increased enforcement of the law in recent years. Three of the accused were former employees of a Canadian company, and the fourth was a representative of a Bangladeshi official. The alleged bribery occurred in relation to a supervision contract for the US$3 billion Padma Multipurpose Bridge construction project in Bangladesh. The World Bank was one of the bridge project’s main financial backers.

The alleged corruption came to light in 2010, when the Bank received multiple emails from four whistleblowers. The tips were received by The Integrity Vice President (“INT“), an independent unit responsible for the investigation of allegations of fraud, corruption and collusion in relation to projects financed by the Bank. After investigating the allegations, the Bank withdrew its US$1.2 billion credit commitment, debarred the company involved for 10 years and shared relevant emails and other findings from its investigation with the RCMP. The RCMP used the Bank’s information to obtain wiretap authorizations to gather its own evidence. The four accused challenged the judicial wiretap authorizations after they were charged under the CFPOA. They sought orders for production of material in the Bank’s files and to examine two of the Bank’s internal investigators.

A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the immunities claimed by the Bank, in part because it had shared certain information with the RCMP. The judge also ruled that the two INT representatives could be examined by counsel for the accused. The Bank appealed the order to the SCC, and several international institutions including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development intervened in support of its position. Transparency International, a non-governmental organization dedicated to reducing corruption, also intervened in order to stress the role of these immunities in protecting whistleblowers, while the Criminal Lawyers Association and the BC Civil Liberties Association intervened in support of the rights of accused persons to make a full answer and defence.

The SCC held that the immunities for both the INT’s documents and its personnel were applicable and not waived. It emphasized that Canada, like other member states in the World Bank institutions, had implemented legislation (the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act) and related Cabinet orders which recognize the legal foundations for the World Bank. These include immunities which shield its “archives” and personnel from legal processes otherwise applicable under Canadian law. The SCC interpreted the definition of archival immunity broadly to include the investigative records of the INT unit, and also concluded that it was not subject to waiver. Even if it were, the SCC rejected the argument that the voluntary disclosure of certain documents constituted an implied waiver of the immunity applicable to all other documents in the possession of an international institution.

Counsel for the accused also unsuccessfully sought to have the relevant INT investigators testify. It was not disputed that the INT representatives were performing acts in their official capacity. The SCC accepted that legal process immunity for officials acting in such a capacity could only be waived by express rather than implied waiver and that the doctrine of “constructive waiver” was not applicable. Given the absence of any express communication by INT that its officials would be subject to Canadian law, the officials were immune from being compelled to be examined.

The SCC’s ruling helps to place Canada on a solid footing with other progressive jurisdictions in efforts to address cross-border corruption issues. The confirmation that protections provided for whistleblowers will be respected by Canadian courts should promote further information sharing and collaboration between international institutions and Canadian law enforcement authorities regarding investigations of corruption or other misconduct.

by Neil Campbell and George Waggott

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2016

Insights (5 Posts)

Featured Insight

FSRA Releases Final Innovation Framework and Opens Testing Environment for Auto Insurance Innovations

SRA recently announced their Final Innovation Framework and Test and Learn Environment Guidance, a positive step forward for financial services innovators.

Read More
Jan 26, 2022
Featured Insight

Getting the Deal Through – Cartel Regulations 2022

Lexology Getting the Deal Through – Cartel Regulations 2022 provides a detailed explanation of how cartel regimes work in practice, including recent developments over the past year and an overview of future changes expected in each jurisdiction.

Read More
Jan 26, 2022
Featured Insight

BC Government Published Workplace Safety Order Mandating COVID-19 Safety Plans

On January 20, 2022, the BC Government published the Workplace Safety order mandating COVID-19 Safety Plans for certain BC workplaces.

Featured Insight

The 2022 Construction Labour “Open Period” – What Employers Need to Know

March 1 – April 30, 2022 is the “Open Period” for ICI collective agreements, and many non-ICI agreements, in Ontario. During this period members of construction unions can apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to terminate a union’s bargaining rights with their employer, or – more commonly – a rival union can apply to the Board to displace an existing union, in what is commonly known as a “raid”. During the Open Period employers will likely see increased union activity on sites as incumbent unions will seek to maintain member support, and as rival unions may try to gather support for a raid.

Join us on Wednesday, February 2nd for a discussion about what employers should expect and need to know if a decertification application or a displacement application involving their employees is filed at the Board.

Wednesday, February 2, 2022
Featured Insight

PropTech: Property Technology, the New Frontier in Real Property, Part 3: Challenges

In this bulletin, we discuss the risks and challenges of using PropTech by businesses in the real estate space and for consumers of such products.

Read More
Jan 18, 2022