A Surrey couple suing prosecutors, police officers and the provincial and federal governments after being acquitted of terrorism-related crimes hit a roadblock in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on April 17 when the court denied their application to serve interrogatories 害羞草研究所� or requests for more information 害羞草研究所� on the Crown defendants to disclose the names of three undercover police officers in the investigation.
A jury in 2015 found the Whalley couple guilty of plotting to blow up pressure cooker bombs containing rusty nails, nuts and bolts outside of the B.C. Legislative Buildings in Victoria on Canada Day in 2013. But John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody were later acquitted, in 2016.
害羞草研究所淭he criminal proceedings were ultimately stayed based on a finding of abuse of process and entrapment,害羞草研究所� Master John Bilawich noted in his April 17 .
Nuttall and Korody then filed in 2021 a lawsuit claiming damages against the defendants, who are listed as Canada (Attorney General), Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (British Columbia), Officer A, Officer C, Officer D, Stephen Matheson, Bill Kalkat, Stephen Corcoran, Daniel Bond, Peter Eccles, Sharon Steele, and John Doe.
Bilawich decided to renew an amendment to the plaintiffs害羞草研究所� notice of civil claim for another six months, which was not opposed.
害羞草研究所淭he plaintiffs害羞草研究所� application for leave to serve the proposed interrogatories is dismissed,害羞草研究所� he also decided.
Nuttall and Korody on Feb. 23, 2013 became the subjects of an undercover police operation code-named 害羞草研究所淧roject Souvenir害羞草研究所� that continued until July 1, 2013, resulting in four terrorism-related charges. Their trial by judge and jury began on Feb, 2, 2015, resulting in the couple being acquitted on one count, a conditional stay of proceedings on another and convictions on two counts. They then applied for a stay of proceedings that was based on entrapment and abuse of process and on July 29, 2016, their application was granted, the Crown appealed the stay of proceedings and on Dec. 19, 2018 the appeal was dismissed.
害羞草研究所淥n March 25, 2021, the plaintiffs started this action,害羞草研究所� Bilawich noted.
Bans were ordered in the B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal proceedings that restrict publication, broadcasting or transmission of evidence that could identify any undercover police officers. 害羞草研究所淪ealing orders were also made which restrict access to the court files to counsel of record and court personnel. The bans and sealing orders remain in effect indefinitely.害羞草研究所�
The couple害羞草研究所檚 lawyers do not know the names of officers A, C and D and thus haven害羞草研究所檛 been able to serve the notice of civil claim on them.
害羞草研究所淭hey also proposed that the officers voluntarily accept service through their counsel of choice, which has not been taken up,害羞草研究所� Bilawich noted in his reasons. The federal Department of Justice advised on March 9 that the Crown defendants 害羞草研究所渨ould not consent to the interrogatories being served.害羞草研究所�
Bilawich decided that until issues concerning the publication bans and sealing order issues are addressed, 害羞草研究所渟imply granting leave to serve interrogatories is unlikely to achieve the result that the plaintiffs desire. To the extent that allowing service of interrogatories could also circumvent or conflict with the terms of the publication bans, it appears doubtful that a Master can or should make such an order in the circumstances. The publication bans and sealing orders should be addressed first.害羞草研究所�
害羞草研究所淚 conclude that it would not be appropriate for the plaintiffs to serve the proposed interrogatories,害羞草研究所� Bilawich determined. 害羞草研究所淐onsideration first needs to be given to how to preserve the safety and security of Officers A, C and D and their families within this action. That may well involve extending the existing publication bans and sealing orders to include this action. Those issues will have to be addressed before a judge of the court.害羞草研究所�
