2006 FC 150
T‑1681‑05
Wappen‑Reederei GmbH & Co. K.G., a body politic and corporate of Hamburg, Germany, and Reederei MS Eilbek GmbH & Co. K.G., a body politic and corporate of Hamburg, Germany (Plaintiffs)
v.
M.V. “Hyde Park”, the Owners and All Others Interested in the Vessel M.V. “Hyde Park” (Defendants)
T‑1719‑05
Halcot Shipping Corp. and Halcot Shipping Limited Partnership (Plaintiffs)
v.
Wappen‑Reederei GmbH & Co. K.G. and Reederei MS Eilbek GmbH & Co. K.G. and the Vessel “Cast Prosperity”and the Owners and All Others Interested in the Vessel “Cast Prosperity” (Defendants)
Indexed as: Wappen‑Reederei GmbH & Co. KG v. Hyde Park (The) (F.C.)
Federal Court, Gauthier J.—Ottawa, November 10, 2005 and February 7, 2006
Transportation — Owners of ships involved in collision seeking return of VHF radio recordings, disclosure of bridge recordings — These recordings, found on voyage data recorder (VDR) of one of ships, seized by Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (TSB) following accident — TSB refusing to release copies of recordings on basis privileged pursuant to Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, s. 28 — Not necessary for recording equipment to be located on bridge, control room of ship for Act, s. 28(1) definition of “on‑board recording” to cover bridge recordings — Bridge recordings thus subject to s. 28 privilege — VHF recordings subject to Act, s. 29, but not s. 28 — These recordings could be produced, but their use was limited by Act, s. 29(6) — Motion allowed in part.
Construction of Statutes — Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, ss. 28, 29 — Reference in Act, s. 28(1) to recording made “on the bridge or in a control room” covering bridge recordings even if recording equipment not located on bridge or in control room of ship — Act, s. 29(6), prohibiting use of communication record in legal, disciplinary proceedings, not limited to proceedings against persons listed in s. 29(1).
Practice — Discovery — Production of Documents — Owners of vessels involved in collision, bringing motion to obtain on‑board recordings seized by Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (TSB) — TSB refusing to release copy of recordings on basis privileged — Whether bridge recordings relevant to actions, discoverable under Federal Courts Rules, rr. 222, 223 — Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, s. 28(6) allowing disclosure if public interest, administration of justice outweighing importance of privilege attached to bridge recordings — Disclosure not warranted in case at bar.
Two ships, the Cast Prosperity and the Hyde Park, collided on the St. Lawrence River. The Cast Prosperity was equipped with a voyage data recorder (VDR), or black box, at the time of the incident. A VDR records and stores various ship data, such as voice communications on the bridge of the ship, as well as communications with other ships and shore stations such as the vessel traffic services (VTS). These communications are stored on a separate band and are recorded directly off the VHF radio system. Following the collision of the Cast Prosperity with the Hyde Park, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (TSB) seized the original and all existing copies of portions of the “on‑board recordings”, including the bridge and VHF recordings, and refused to release a copy of those recordings on the basis that they were privileged. The owners and operators of the ships sought, inter alia, an order directing the TSB to return the original of the VHF recordings and to provide complete copies of the bridge recordings.
Held, the motion should be allowed in part.
The relevant provisions in the case at bar were sections 28 and 29 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (TSB Act). Section 28 deals with on‑board recordings and section 29 deals with communication records. Both of these sections contain certain prohibitions with respect to the use of these types of information (i.e. subsections 28(7) and 29(6)).
The first issue was whether subsection 28(1) of the TSB Act, which defines the term “on‑board recording”, covered any of the recordings seized by the TSB. That subsection refers to a recording as one “that is made . . . on the bridge or in a control room of the ship.” Considering the French and English wording of subsection 28(1), as well as the international context, it could not be said that bridge recordings are not covered by the definition of “on‑board recording” simply because not all of the recording equipment is located on the bridge or in a control room of the ship. The bridge recordings at issue here were therefore subject to section 28. The VHF recordings were not subject to section 28 of the TSB Act. The legislator is presumed to have meant something by the addition of the words “made on the bridge or in the control room of the ship” in the definition of “on‑board recording” in subsection 28(1). The manner in which a recording is made appears to be the only thing that will determine if a recording is subject to section 28 or 29. The VHF recordings were subject to the regime set out in section 29. That section deals specifically with radio communications with VTS. It does not contain a general privilege preventing a party from communicating, producing or giving evidence about those recordings. However, subsection 29(6) does provide that “[a] communication record obtained under this Act shall not be used against any person referred to in subsection (1) in any legal proceedings or, subject to any applicable collective agreement, in any disciplinary proceedings.” This prohibition applies only to a communication record that relates to a transportation occurrence being investigated under the Act and which was released to an investigator. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the general context, subsection 29(6) is not limited to legal proceedings instituted against the persons listed in subsection (1), and the underlying actions in the case at bar fell within its ambit. While Parliament focused that prohibition on the purpose for which these records were actually to be used, and the records at issue here could be listed in an affidavit of documents, the use of these records was limited by subsection 29(6).
Anomalies caused by the absence of a provision enabling the Court to balance the interest of administration of justice with the privilege set out in subsection 29(6) can only be dealt with by amendments to the legislation.
The second issue was whether the bridge recordings should be disclosed pursuant to subsection 28(6) of the TSB Act, which provides that “the court may order the production and discovery of the on‑board recording” if it concludes that “in the circumstances of the case . . . the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the on‑board recording by virtue of this section.” Here, the bridge recordings were of little evidentiary value and as such, their disclosure was not warranted.
statutes and regulations judicially
considered
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑5, ss. 37 (as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 43; 2002, c. 8, s. 183), 38 (as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 141(4)).
Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑12, ss. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3, ss. 7 (as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 20, s. 5), 24(3), (4.1) (as am. idem, s. 15), 28 (as am. idem, s. 17), 29 (as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 10, s. 167; c. 20, s. 18), 30 (as am. idem, s. 19), 31, 32 (as am. idem, s. 20), 33 (as am. idem), 35 (as am. idem, s. 22).
Convention on International Civil Aviation, December 7, 1944, [1944] Can. T.S. No. 36.
Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, rr. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004‑283, s. 2), 222, 223.
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, [1980] Can. T.S. No. 45, c. V.
Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21.
cases judicially considered
applied:
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; (2002), 212 D.L.R. (4th) 1; [2002] 5 W.W.R. 1; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 100 B.C.L.R. (3d) 1; 18 C.P.R. (4th) 289; 93 C.R.R. (2d) 189; 287 N.R. 248; 2002 SCC 42.
referred to:
Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; (2002), 219 D.L.R. (4th) 385; 49 Admin. L.R. (3d) 1; 22 C.P.R. (4th) 289; 7 C.R. (6th) 88; 99 C.R.R. (2d) 324; 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75; Propair inc. et al. c. Goodrich Corporation, [2003] J.Q. no 243 (Sup. Ct) (QL); Air Inuit (1985) Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] R.J.Q. 1475 (Sup. Ct.); Chernetz v. Eagle Copters Ltd. (2003), 335 A.R. 113; [2004] 9 W.W.R. 325; 28 Alta. L.R. (4th) 137; 2003 ABQB 331; Algoma Central Corp. v. Prestigious (The) (1994), 74 F.T.R. 145 (F.C.T.D.); Ultramar Canada Inc. v. Czantoria (The) (1994), 84 F.T.R. 241 (F.C.T.D.).
authors cited
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act Review Commission. Advancing Safety. Ottawa: The Commission, 1994.
International Maritime Organization. Guidelines on Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) Ownership and Recovery, May 29, 2002, MSC/Circ. 1024.
International Maritime Organization. Resolution A.849(2). “Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents”, adopted November 27, 1997.
International Maritime Organization. Resolution A.861(20). “Recommandation on Performance Standards for Shipborne Voyage Date Recorder (VDRs)”, adopted November 27, 1997.
International Maritime Organization. Resolution MSC.163(78). “Performance Standards for Shipborne Simplified Voyage Data Recorders (S-VDRs)”, adopted May 17, 2004.
“United States Aviation Safety Data: Uses and Issues Related to Sanctions and Confidentiality” (2005), 70 J. Air L. & Com. 83.
MOTION for the return and disclosure of recordings seized by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. Motion allowed in part.
appearances:
Nicholas J. Spillane for plaintiffs in T‑1681‑05.
Gassim Bangoura and Peter G. Pamel for defendants in T‑1681‑05.
Martin F. Sheehan for Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
solicitors of record:
Brisset Bishop s.e.n.c., Montréal, for plaintiffs in T‑1681‑05.
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Montréal, for defendants in T‑1681‑05.
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montréal, for Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
The following are the reasons for order and order rendered in English by
[1]Gauthier J.: On September 26, 2005 the German container vessel Cast Prosperity collided with the Liberian chemical tanker Hyde Park in the St. Lawrence River.
[2]At the time of the incident, the Cast Prosperity was equipped with a voyage data recorder (VDR), commonly referred to as a “black box”, which records and stores various ship data (such as ship’s position, speed, heading, etc.) including voice communications via microphones on the bridge of the ship (bridge recordings). The VDR also records radio communications with other ships and with shore stations such as the vessel traffic services (VTS). These recordings are stored on a separate band and are recorded directly off the VHF radio system (VHF recordings).
[3]In the course of its investigation into the collision, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (TSB) seized the original and all existing copies of portions of what it considers the “on‑board recordings”, in particular for the period between 2200 hours and 2300 hours on September 26, 2005. These include the bridge recordings as well as the VHF recordings. The TSB refuses to release a copy of those recordings on the basis that they are privileged.
[4]The report of the TSB has not yet been issued.
[5]The plaintiffs in T‑1681‑05 are the owners and operators of the Cast Prosperity and they instituted an action against the owners and operators of the Hyde Park. Similarly, the owners and operators of the Hyde Park instituted an action against the owners and operators of the Cast Prosperity in T‑1719‑05.
[6]The owners and operators of the Cast Prosperity filed this motion in both actions to obtain an order:
(i) directing the TSB to return to them the original of the VHF recordings because such recordings do not fall under section 28 [as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 20, s. 17] of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3, as amended (the TSB Act);
(ii) directing the TSB to preserve until further ordered by this Court, the original of the bridge recordings they seized and directing the TSB to provide for the parties to the two actions (T‑1681‑05 and T‑1719‑05), complete copies of these recordings within five days of the order;
(iii) directing that the said copies shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed by the parties to anyone other than their respective experts, consultants, insurers and attorneys, or by their experts, consultants, insurers and attorneys to any third party, without the specific permission of the Court;
(iv) directing that none of the recordings shall be filed in the Court record in whole or in part, without the specific permission of the Court.
[7]The owners and operators of the Hyde Park filed written submissions in support of the motion. Hereinafter, I will refer collectively to the owners and operators of these two vessels as “the parties”.
[8]In accordance with section 28 of the TSB Act, notice of the said motion was given to the TSB who filed written representations and presented arguments at the hearing. The TSB’s position is that section 28 of the TSB Act applies to all the recordings that were seized by them and that the facts alleged by the parties in support of their request do not establish that public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the on‑board recordings.
[9]This is the first time that this issue is raised in the context of a marine casualty. The parties agree that there are only a few cases where Canadian courts have been asked for permission to disclose cockpit recordings in the context of an air transportation casualty.
[10]The parties say that the purpose of their motion is simply to insure the preservation of certain evidence and to make it available to the parties in the two above-mentioned actions. They submit that the motion would not seek, were it not contested by the TSB, any substantive determination with respect to that evidence, whether with respect to confidentiality or otherwise. They thus seek costs against the TSB.
LEGISLATION
[11]The most relevant sections of the TSB Act are sections 28 and 29 [as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 10, s. 167; c. 20, s. 18]. They read as follows:
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3
28. (1) In this section, “on‑board recording” means the whole or any part of
(a) a recording of voice communications originating from, or received on or in,
(i) the flight deck of an aircraft,
(ii) the bridge or a control room of a ship,
(iii) the cab of a locomotive, or
(iv) the control room or pumping station of a pipeline, or
(b) a video recording of the activities of the operating personnel of an aircraft, ship, locomotive or pipeline
that is made, using recording equipment that is intended to not be controlled by the operating personnel, on the flight deck of the aircraft, on the bridge or in a control room of the ship, in the cab of the locomotive or in a place where pipeline operations are carried out, as the case may be, and includes a transcript or substantial summary of such a recording.
(2) Every on‑board recording is privileged and, except as provided by this section, no person, including any person to whom access is provided under this section, shall
(a) knowingly communicate an on‑board recording or permit it to be communicated to any person; or
(b) be required to produce an on‑board recording or give evidence relating to it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
(3) Any on‑board recording that relates to a transportation occurrence being investigated under this Act shall be released to an investigator who requests it for the purposes of the investigation.
(4) The Board may make such use of any on‑board recording obtained under this Act as it considers necessary in the interests of transportation safety, but, subject to subsection (5), shall not knowingly communicate or permit to be communicated to anyone any portion thereof that is unrelated to the causes or contributing factors of the transportation occurrence under investigation or to the identification of safety deficiencies.
(5) The Board shall make available any on‑board recording obtained under this Act to
. . .
(b) a coroner who requests access thereto for the purpose of an investigation that the coroner is conducting; or
(c) any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 18.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where, in any proceedings before a court or coroner, a request for the production and discovery of an on‑board recording is made, the court or coroner shall
(a) cause notice of the request to be given to the Board, if the Board is not a party to the proceedings;
(b) in camera, examine the on‑board recording and give the Board a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect thereto; and
(c) if the court or coroner concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the on‑board recording by virtue of this section, order the production and discovery of the on‑board recording, subject to such restrictions or conditions as the court or coroner deems appropriate, and may require any person to give evidence that relates to the on‑board recording.
(7) An on‑board recording may not be used against any of the following persons in disciplinary proceedings, proceedings relating to the capacity or competence of an officer or employee to perform the officer’s or employee’s functions, or in legal or other proceedings, namely, air or rail traffic controllers, marine traffic regulators, aircraft, train or ship crew members (including, in the case of ships, masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), airport vehicle operators, flight service station specialists, persons who relay messages respecting air or rail traffic control, marine traffic regulation or related matters and persons who are directly or indirectly involved in the operation of a pipeline.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (6), “court” includes a person or persons appointed or designated to conduct a public inquiry into a transportation occurrence pursuant to this Act or the Inquiries Act.
29. (1) In this section, “communication record” means the whole or any part of any record, recording, copy, transcript or substantial summary of
(a) any type of communications respecting air traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, air traffic controllers, aircraft crew members, airport vehicle operators, flight service station specialists and persons who relay messages respecting air traffic control or related matters,
(b) any type of communications respecting rail traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, rail traffic controllers, train crew members, maintenance of way employees, signal maintainers, vehicle operators and persons who relay messages respecting rail traffic control or related matters,
(c) any type of communications respecting marine traffic regulation or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, marine traffic regulators, persons designated under subsection 58(1) or section 76, 99 or 106 of the Canada Marine Act, ship crew members (including masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), and staff of Coast Guard radio stations, rescue coordination centres and subcentres and harbour master offices;
(d) any type of communications respecting maritime distress, maritime safety or related matters
(i) that take place between any of the following persons, namely, Coast Guard radio station operators, ship crew members (including masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), and staff of vessel traffic services centres, persons designated under subsection 58(1) or section 76, 99 or 106 of the Canada Marine Act, rescue coordination centres and subcentres, harbour master offices and ship agents’ offices, or
(ii) that take place between any person on shore and a ship via a Coast Guard radio station, or
(e) any type of communication respecting the operation of a pipeline that takes place between persons who are control room personnel, pumping station personnel, operating personnel or members of a maintenance crew or an emergency response crew.
(6) A communication record obtained under this Act shall not be used against any person referred to in subsection (1) in any legal proceedings or, subject to any applicable collective agreement, in any disciplinary proceedings.
[12]The earlier versions of sections 28 and 29 of the TSB Act are in Annex 1.
ISSUES
(i) Does section 28 apply to the VHF recordings or the bridge recordings as these recordings were not made using equipment that is on the bridge or in the control room of the ship?
(ii) Should the Court use its discretion under subsection 28(6) to order the production and discovery of any portion of the recordings seized by the TSB?
[13]I do not believe that it is necessary at this stage to determine the other issues raised by the TSB and the parties. However, I note that the TSB has argued that the VTS recordings obtained by the parties directly from VTS are also privileged and should not have been communicated to the parties. They should not be used in these proceedings. My comments with respect to the VHF recordings and the application of sections 28 and 29 will certainly bring some light on this further issue.
[14]Also, the parties and the TSB disagree on the proper interpretation to be given to subsection 28(7) of the TSB Act. The TSB says that it applies to any proceedings including proceedings that do not include any of the persons referred to in that section as a party. The parties submit that this subsection should be construed restrictively and applies only to proceedings against such persons. Even though this issue has not been addressed so far by the courts, this case only requires that the Court discuss the interpretation of subsection 29(6).
[15]Finally, at the hearing, the parties also argued that they should be entitled to listen to the recordings with the Court because the TSB Act speaks of an examination in camera—à huis‑clos. In their view, this expression only permits the exclusion of the public; it does not mean that the Court is entitled to review the evidence in the absence of a party or ex parte (Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3).
[16]The TSB disagrees and says that it would be contrary to the scheme of the Act and the intention of the legislator to communicate to the parties and their counsel the privileged information before the Court has actually made a ruling authorizing such communication pursuant to subsection 28(6). The TSB submits that this interpretation appears to have been adopted by the courts in the past for, to its knowledge, whenever a court was called upon to review privileged information under subsection 28(6) or 30(5) of the TSB Act (or their predecessors), they examined it alone in their chambers.
[17]It also appears that this interpretation is consistent with how courts have dealt with other types of privileged information in the context of requests for disclosure (see for example the process set out in sections 37 [as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, s. 43; 2002, c. 8, s. 183] and 38 [as am. by S.C. 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 141(4)] of the Canada Evidence Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑5]).
[18]However, at the end of the hearing, the parties advised the Court that it need not decide this point today for they had agreed, for the purpose of this motion only, that the Court could listen to these recordings alone in its chambers.
[19]Before reviewing the aforementioned issues to be decided, it is useful to look at the general context (national and international) and at the objectives of the TSB and the TSB Act.
BACKGROUND
[20]Prior to June 1989, when the TSB Act was enacted, there was no coordinated independent multimodal accident investigation entity in Canada. Each mode of transportation had its own regime.
[21]When one compares the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-12 (CASB Act) with the 1989 version of the TSB Act, it becomes evident that the statutory regime in place for the investigation of aviation casualties was the model used for the new multimodal accident investigation Board created by the TSB Act, particularly in respect of protection of information and evidence gathered by the TSB during an investigation.
[22]The TSB Act provided that after 3 years of operation, an independent commission would assess its effect on the safety of transportation in all the modes it covered. This review was completed in January 1994. The report of the Commission entitled “Advancing Safety” is useful because it reviews the historical themes which influenced the design of the TSB and the policy reasons behind many of the provisions that the Court now has to construe.
[23]The main objective of the TSB is described at section 7 [as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 20, s. 5] of the TSB Act. It is to advance transportation safety in federally regulated elements of the marine, rail, pipeline and air transportation systems by:
(a) conducting independent investigations and when necessary, public inquiries, and to select a transportation occurrence in order to make findings as to their causes and contributing factors;
(b) identifying safety deficiencies as evidenced by transportation occurrences;
(c) making recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce any such safety deficiencies; and
(d) reporting publicly on its investigations and on the findings in relation thereto.
[24]Subsection 7(2) specifies that it is not the TSB’s function to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.
[25]But, “human failings are often involved, there is tension between the need to get at the truth to avoid future danger and the concern of those involved that they may be held to blame if they reveal facts which point to their own mistakes.”1
[26]The TSB’s investigators are given diverse powers such as the power to compel a person to produce information or to give a statement. They may require a person to submit to a medical examination. They may search and seize anything involved or likely to be involved in a transportation occurrence. They may require a physician or practitioner to provide health information concerning a patient that is relevant to their investigation and they even have the right to require the person having custody of the body of a deceased person to permit the performance of an autopsy or a medical examination that may be relevant to the conduct of their investigation.
[27]It is in that context that Parliament has chosen to create a complex set of rules about how the TSB and others can use the information it collects during its investigations. As mentioned in Advancing Safety (at page 154), “[m]ost fact‑finding bodies, including courts, are content with general rules about the use of information [but] the CTAISB Act [TSB Act] is unusual in its detailed and different treatment of various types of information” such as witness statements (section 30 [as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 20, s. 19]), draft reports and representations of interested parties (subsections 24(3) and 24(4.1) [as am. idem, s. 15]), on‑board recordings (section 28), communication records (section 29) and reports of transportation occurrences and the identity of the person who reports such occurrences (section 31). The Act also provides that an investigator is not a competent or compellable witness in any proceedings unless the Court ordered it for a special cause (section 32 [as am. idem, s. 20]) and that the opinion of a member of the TSB or an investigator is not admissible in evidence in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings (section 33 [as am. idem]).
[28]Although the need to identify safety deficiencies as efficiently as possible was the prime public interest motivating the introduction of all such provisions, it appears from pages 156 and 157 of the Commission’s report that “the introduction of cockpit voice recorders was based on what was in effect a social contract between flight crew and their employers and regulators, granting this right was an extraordinary concession which should not go any further.” According to the evidence put before the Commission,2 “flight crews considered the introduction of technology to record cockpit conversations an extraordinary invasion of workplace privacy, originally they tolerated the introduction of this technology on the understanding that it would be used only to promote safety.”3
[29]In his affidavit, Mr. Kinsman says at paragraph 13 that the policy underlying the statutory privilege with respect to on‑board recordings is the public interest in insuring that the various protagonists involved in the security of the travelling public are unimpeded in times of crisis by the threat that their actions or words could be used against them. This appears somewhat different than what is reflected in the Commission’s report and some of the decisions dealing with this issue.4 Mr. Kinsman does not indicate on what basis he came to that conclusion. He further indicates that the TSB is of the view that the privilege is necessary to encourage frank communications between marine traffic regulators and various crew members in times of crisis. Again, there is no indication as to the basis on which the TSB came to that conclusion and this view is contested by the parties based on the fact that VTS recordings have been used consistently in shipping cases and are known not to be confidential by all those involved in the industry. The parties say that those on board any ship within appropriate distance of the sending or receiving stations are able to listen to those communications, which are made over public frequencies such as channels 8 and 13.5
[30]The Commission found that the wording adopted in 1989 led to “a maze of overlapping rules riddled with exceptions.”6 It recommended various changes to simplify and clarify these issues but in 1998 only minor amendments were made to section 28 while subsections 29(2)-(5) were completely deleted (see Annex 1).
[31]When the TSB Act was adopted in 1989, on‑board recordings were made mainly, if not only, in the cockpit of aircrafts.7
[32]Although the National Transportation Safety Board of the United States recommended to the American Coast Guard as early as 1976 the installation of black boxes on board ocean‑going tankships and container ships, it is only in 1997 that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted its resolution A. 861(20) setting out performance standards for ship- born voyage data recorders . By that time, it was felt that the level of technological sophistication of modern ships was such that Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, [[1980] Can. T.S. No. 45] (SOLAS) could be modified to provide for the mandatory installation of VDRs on board certain types of vessels as of July 1, 2002.
[33]That performance standard describes the purpose of VDRs as follows:
The purpose of a voyage data recorder (VDR) is to maintain a store, in a secure and retrievable form, of information concerning the position, movement, physical status, command and control of a vessel over the period leading up to and following an incident having an impact thereon. Information contained in a VDR should be made available to both the Administration and the shipowner. This information is for use during subsequent investigation to identify the cause(s) of the incident.
[34]Resolution MSC.163(78) adopted on May 17, 2004 sets out a performance standard for ship‑born simplified voyage data recorders (S‑VDRs). This simplified version must be installed by 2008 on all existing vessels including those constructed before 2002. The stated purpose of those S-VDRs is identical to the purpose of VDRs set out in the performance standard for VDRs.
[35]In addition to these performance standards, the Assembly of the IMO adopted a Code for the investigation of marine casualties and incidents (Resolution A.849(20)) on November 27, 1997.8
[36]Like the TSB Act, the Code spells out that it is not the purpose of such investigations to determine liability or to blame a person. At article 10, it deals with disclosure of records as follows:
10.1 The State conducting the investigation of a casualty or incident, wherever it has occurred, should not make the following records, obtained during the conduct of the investigation, available for purposes other than casualty investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs any possible adverse domestic and international impact on that or any future investigation, and the State providing the information authorizes its release:
.1 all statements taken from persons by the investigating authorities in the course of the investigation;
.2 all communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the ship;
.3 medical or private information regarding persons involved in the casualty or incident;
.4 opinions expressed during the conduct of the investigation.
10.2 These records should be included in the final report, or its appendices, only when pertinent to the analysis of the casualty or incident. Parts of the record not pertinent, and not included in the final report, should not be disclosed. [Underlining added.]
[37]Section 10.1 is similar to the wording of section 5.12 of Annex 139 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation [December 7, 1944, [1944] Can. T.S. No. 36], except that it does not include a provision like subparagraph (d) of section 5.12 which deals with cockpit voice recordings and transcripts from such recordings.
[38]Section 10.2 of the Code reproduces word for word section 5.12.1 of the said Annex 13 mentioned above.
[39]Finally, the IMO issued its circular MSC/CIRC./ 1024, dated May 29, 2002 entitled “Guidelines on voyage data recorder (VDR) ownership and recovery”, the most relevant portions of which read as follows:
Ownership of VDR information
1. The ship owner will, in all circumstances and at all times, own the VDR and its information. However, in the event of an accident the following guidelines would apply. The owner of the ship should make available and maintain all the decoding instructions necessary to recover the recorded information.
Recovery of VDR and relevant information
2. . . .
.1 Recovery of the VDR information should be undertaken as soon as possible after an accident to best preserve the relevant evidence for use by both the investigator and the ship owner.
. . .
Custody of VDR information
3. In all circumstances, during the course of an investigation, the investigator should have custody of the original VDR information. . . .
Read‑out of VDR information
4. In all circumstances, the investigator is responsible to arrange down loading and read‑out of the information and should keep the ship owner fully informed. . . .
Access to VDR information
5. A copy of VDR information must be provided to the ship owner at an early stage in all circumstances.
6. Further access to the information will be governed by the applicable domestic legislation of the flag State. . . .
7. Any disclosure of VDR information should be in accordance with section 10 of the Code. . . . [My emphasis.]
ANALYSIS
[40]In interpreting the TSB Act, the Court must be guided by the principles summarized by Justice Iacobucci in Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, at paragraphs 26-27 as follows:
In Elmer Driedger’s definitive formulation, found at p. 87 of his Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983):
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Driedger’s modern approach has been repeatedly cited by this Court as the preferred approach to statutory interpretation across a wide range of interpretive settings: . . . I note as well that, in the federal legislative context, this Court’s preferred approach is buttressed by s. 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑21, which provides that every enactment “is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects”.
The preferred approach recognizes the important role that context must inevitably play when a court construes the written words of a statute: as Professor John Willis incisively noted in his seminal article “Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell” (1938), 16 Can. Bar Rev. l, at p. 6, “words, like people take their colour from their surroundings”. This being the case, where the provision under consideration is found in an Act that is itself a component of a larger statutory scheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the scheme of the Act are more expansive. In such an instance, the application of Driedger’s principle gives rise to what was described in R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867, 2001 SCC 56, at para. 52, as “the principle of interpretation that presumes a harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter”.
[41]In that context, the Court will also consider the evolution of sections 28 and 29 (Annex 1) and the few elements of the legislative history put forward by the TSB in the affidavit of Mr. Asselin.
[42]Canada signed the SOLAS Convention and the international developments described in the background are part of the larger context that the Court can consider.10
(A) Does subsection 28(1) cover any of the recordings seized by the TSB?
[43]The definition found at subsection 28(1) refers to “a recording . . . that is made . . . on the bridge or in a control room of the ship.”
[44]There is no dispute that the microphones capturing the voice communications are on the bridge of the Cast Prosperity. These microphones are certainly part of the recording equipment referred to in section 28. The fact that the storage of the information captured by the microphones is made in a black box located in a utility room of the vessel cannot take these on‑board recordings out of the ambit of the definition.
[45]The only express reference to the recording equipment in that section was added in 1998 to specify that the recording equipment could not be controlled by the operating personnel. There is no doubt here that wherever the black box is on‑board the Cast Prosperity, it is not controlled by the operating personnel.
[46]Having considered the language of subsection 28(1)(a) in French and in English in the context of the scheme of the Act and as well as the international context, the Court cannot accept the parties’ position that the bridge recordings are not covered by the definition of “on‑board recording” simply because not all of the recording equipment is located on the bridge or in a control room of the ship.
[47]With respect to the VHF recordings, the situation is quite different.
[48]At paragraph 12 of his affidavit, Mr. Kinsman of the TSB says that the VDR “on the Cast Prosperity is an on‑board recording and contains communication records as these are defined in the Act.” This legal conclusion appears to be based solely on the fact that the VHF recording is “a recording of voice communications originating from, or received on or in, . . . the bridge or a control room of a ship”. Mr. Kinsman does not refer to or consider the portion of the definition which is at the heart of the dispute today.
[49]The Court cannot simply focus on what is recorded as opposed to where or how the recording is made. The legislator is presumed to have meant something when he added the words “made . . . on the bridge or in the control room of the ship” after stating what content was included at paragraphs 28(1)(a), (b) and (c).
[50]This is particularly important with respect to radio communications with VTS. Indeed, the manner in which the recording of such communications is made appears to be the only thing that will determine if a recording is subject to section 28 or to section 29.11
[51]Such a distinction is important since the differences in the protection set out in those two sections are significant.
[52]Section 29 of the TSB Act deals specifically with radio communications with VTS and it does not contain a general privilege preventing a party from communicating those recordings or from producing them or giving evidence about them (a contrario, see subsection 28(2)).
[53]Also, subsection 29(6) which prohibits use of a “communication record obtained under this Act”12 appears to apply only to a communication record that relates to a transportation occurrence being investigated under this Act and which was released to an investigator for the purpose of the investigation. In effect, this language was the one used in the subsections 29(3), (4) and (5) which were repealed in 1998.13
[54]This makes sense when one considers that as submitted by the parties, the communications on the VHF radio are not private or confidential when they are made.14 These recordings have also been available to ship operators involved in collisions for many years.15
[55]But, as mentioned, Parliament has prohibited the use of a communication record obtained under this Act against any person referred to in subsection 29(1) in any legal proceedings or, subject to the applicable collective agreement, in any disciplinary proceedings. In the present circumstances, it is not clear if this prohibition would apply to the records obtained from VTS for this may not be a record obtained under this Act. But, it would apply to the VHF recordings.
[56]Thus, even if the Court concludes that a copy of the VHF recordings should be returned to the Cast Prosperity, their use will be subject to that prohibition.
[57]The Court has carefully considered the arguments16 put forward by both sides as to the interpretation of “against” and “legal proceedings” with respect to subsection 28(7) for they are also relevant to the construction of subsection 29(6).
[58]This or very similar language is used in French and in English in sections 28-33 of the TSB Act. In many of those sections, it is used in various forms in the subsections. For example, subsection 28(2) refers simply to “any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings,” while subsection 28(6) applies to “any proceedings before a court or coroner” and subsection 28(7) to “disciplinary proceedings, proceedings relating to the capacity or competence of an officer or employee to perform the officer’s or employee’s functions, or in legal or other proceedings”.
[59]These provisions must be construed in a consistent and coherent manner.
[60]Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the general context set out in the background, the Court finds that subsection 29(6) is not limited to legal proceedings instituted against the persons listed in subsection 29(1). It would include the two actions instituted by the parties.
[61]But, Parliament did not simply prohibit the use of the communication records in all these proceedings. It focused the prohibition on the purpose for which these records were actually to be used. This is the crucial element.
[62]The listing of these records in an affidavit of documents in the present proceedings would not in my view be prohibited.
[63]Because this provision limits the rights of the parties and of the Court to use evidence that may be very relevant without providing for any exception similar to the one set out in subsections 28(6) and 30(5), it must be construed restrictively.
[64]There is little doubt that “use against a person listed in subsection 29(1)” does not mean use against their employers.
[65]But each case will need to be decided on its own facts and at this stage it is not advisable to attempt to further delineate the parameters of the prohibition.
[66]It would certainly be difficult to ascertain if this subsection applies until a party actually attempts to use such recordings. It would be desirable, whenever possible, to leave this determination to the trial judge for, at that stage, the Court would not have to speculate as to possible uses.
[67]Before concluding on this point, the Court notes that the absence of a provision enabling the Court to balance the interest of the administration of justice with the privilege set out in subsection 29(6), can lead to results that may not have been intended by the legislator. For example, it appears that a communication record could not be used to prove that a person listed in subsection 29(1) committed perjury either in a criminal proceeding or in a section 35 [as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 20, s. 22] proceeding or simply during a civil trial. Looking at other sections such as 28 and 30 of the TSB Act, it is doubtful that the legislator intended to give a licence to lie to anybody.
[68]Also, these records could not be used to establish the facts even if all those involved in a casualty were unavailable because of death or other good reasons. Did Parliament really believe that a miscarriage of justice was a reasonable price to pay to protect those communications which are not even expected to be private when made over the VHF radio system? Unfortunately, these anomalies can only be dealt with by amendments to the legislation.
[69]That being said, the Court concludes that the bridge recordings are subject to section 28 of the TSB Act but the VHF recordings are not. Those recordings are only subject to the regime set out in section 29 of the TSB Act. There is therefore no need or reason at this stage to make their disclosure the subject of a confidentiality order.
(B) Should the bridge recordings be disclosed to the parties pursuant to subsection 28(6)?
[70]Subsection 28(6) of the TSB Act clearly sets out the test that the Court must apply. It must determine whether “in the circumstances of the case,” public interest and a proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the bridge recordings by virtue of this section.
[71]The parties submit that:
(i) this statutory privilege is not absolute;
(ii) the bridge recordings are obviously relevant to their actions and are discoverable under rules 222-223 of the Federal Courts Rules [SOR/98-106, r. 1 (as am. by SOR/2004-283, s. 2)];
(iii) the bridge recordings constitute the best evidence of events that are crucial to this litigation. Thus, the Court should not apply the same criteria that applies to less reliable evidence such as witness statements.17
[72]In my view, relevance only establishes that the administration of justice is in play in the present instance. If the bridge recordings were not relevant, no balancing would be necessary.
[73]Also, the fact that the bridge recordings are discoverable is not relevant to the balancing exercise. The Rules clearly provide for a schedule listing all documents for which privilege is claimed or imposed. This is how a party deals with documents or information protected by another type of statutory privilege or by common-law privilege such as solicitor‑client privilege.
[74]As it is the case in respect of other statutory privileges which are subject to a similar balancing exercise, the Court must give appropriate weight to the privilege and avoid routinely allowing disclosure simply because of the probative value normally attached to audio recordings of events. In all cases, the Court must consider among other things:
(i) the nature and subject-matter of the litigation;
(ii) the nature and probative value of the evidence in the particular case and how necessary this evidence is for the proper determination of a core issue before the Court;
(iii) whether there are other ways of getting this information before the Court;
(iv) the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
[75]The assertion made by the parties that the information contained in the bridge recordings may be crucial and may not be available from another source that is as reliable are simply not supported by the evidence before the Court. There is also no indication of a possible miscarriage of justice.
[76]Because of the poor quality of the bridge recordings and of the fact that many of the conversations on the bridge were carried out in German, the Court requested the TSB to provide it with a transcript and a translation. This has now been received and the Court is satisfied that the bridge recordings and the transcript are of little evidentiary value in this case.
[77]In view of the foregoing, I have concluded that the bridge recordings and the transcript thereof should not be disclosed to the parties.
[78]Turning now to the issue of costs, the Court is satisfied that each side should bear its own costs. This motion has been successful only in part and the TSB was only carrying out the duty imposed on it by Parliament.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
All copies of the VHF recordings in possession of the TSB shall be returned to the owners and operators of the Cast Prosperity. The TSB shall be entitled to retain the original as long as same is required for the purpose of its investigation.
1 Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act review Commission. Advancing Safety. Ottawa: The Commission, 1994, at p. XV.
2 See note 56, at p. 179 of the report Advancing Safety.
3 At para. 16 of his affidavit, Mr. Kinsman specifies that on-board recordings communication records and statements contain personal information protected under the Privacy Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21] and that it is TSB’s policy not to release this information unless all persons whose voice has been recorded, consent to the disclosure.
4 Propair inc. et al. c. Goodrich Corporation, [2003] J.Q. no 243 (Sup. Ct.) and Air Inuit (1985) Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] R.J.Q. 1475 (Sup. Ct.).
5 Para. 3 of Mr. Radman’s affidavit dated October 28, 2005.
6 Advancing Safety, Executive Summary, at p. XV.
7 Cockpit voice recorders were introduced in the late sixties, see “United States Aviation Safety Data: Uses and Issues Related to Sanctions and Confidentiality (2005), 70 J. Air L. & Com. 83, at p. 96.
8 The Maritime Safety Committee currently works on a draft of International Standards and Recommended Practices in Marine Casualty and Incident Investigation which are generally in line with sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the IMO Code. It also provides at section 10.4: “If a person who is an individual is required by law to provide evidential material that may incriminate them, then the evidential material should, so far as municipal laws allow, be prevented from admission into evidence in civil or criminal proceedings against the individual” (Mr. Asselin’s affidavit, at para. 16 and exhibit D).
9 The text of these provisions of Annex 13 is reproduced in Chernetz v. Eagle Copters Ltd. (2003), 335 A.R. 113 (Q.B.), at para. 24.
10 Obviously, none of the international rules are binding and the courts must apply express and unambiguous provisions of Canadian statutes even if they appear contrary to Canada’s international obligations. In that respect, it must be noted that the TSB Act was adopted prior to these developments, which were also obviously not considered by the Commission who completed its work in 1994.
11 S. 28(1)(b) certainly includes conversations with VTS for in addition to the wide language of this paragraph, there is an express reference to persons who relay messages respecting marine traffic regulations in s. 28(7). The bridge recordings include these communications.
12 This is to be compared with s. 28(2) which applies to every on-board recordings as opposed to ss. 28(3), (4) and (5) that apply only to on-board recordings obtained under this Act.
13 S.C. 1998, c. 20, s. 18.
14 As mentioned earlier, the Court is not referring here to interception by unauthorized persons equipped with scanners but to the fact that as mentioned any ship within appropriate distance from a shore station will hear the communications on channel 13, a channel that these other ships must also use to communicate with VTS.
15 Algoma Central Corp. v. Prestigious (The) (1994), 74 F.T.R. 145 (F.C.T.D.); and Ultramar Canada Inc. v. Czantoria (The) (1994), 84 F.T.R. 241 (F.C.T.D.).
16 Letters dated January 18 and 19, 2006.
17 The gaps in the VTS recordings are no longer relevant as the VHF recordings are now available.
ANNEX 1
COMPARATIVE TABLE
Canadian Aviation Safety Board, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑12:
privilege
32. In sections 33 to 35, “cockpit voice recording” means the whole or any part of any recording, transcript or substantial summary of voice communications on the flight deck of an aircraft, the aural environment of the flight deck, voice communications to and from the aircraft or audio signals identifying navigation and approach aids.
33. (1) Every cockpit voice recording is privileged and, except as provided by this section or section 34, no person, including any person to whom access is provided under this section or section 34, shall
(a) knowingly release it or permit it to be released to any person; or
(b) be required to produce it or give evidence relating to it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
(2) Any cockpit voice recording that relates to an aviation occurrence being investigated under this Act shall be released to the Board or an investigator who requires access thereto for the purposes of an investigation by the Board under this Act.
(3) The Board may make such use of any cockpit voice recording obtained under this Act as it considers necessary in the interests of aviation safety, but, subject to subsection (4), shall not knowingly release or permit to be released any portion thereof that is unrelated to the contributing factors and causes of any aviation occurrence investigated under this Act.
(4) The Board shall release any cockpit voice recording obtained under this Act to
(a) a peace officer authorized by law to gain access thereto;
(b) a coroner who requires access thereto for the purpose of an investigation he is conducting; or
(c) any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 17 or appointed by the Minister of Transport pursuant to subsection 26(2) who requires access thereto in order to carry out his duties and functions.
34. (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 33, where in any proceedings before a court or coroner a request for the production or discovery of a cockpit voice recording is made, the court or coroner shall
(a) cause a notice of the request to be given to the Board, if it is not a party to the proceedings,
(b) in camera, examine the cockpit voice recording, and
(c) give the Board a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect thereto,
and, if the court or coroner concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the cockpit voice recording by virtue of section 33, the court or coroner shall order its production and discovery, subject to such restrictions or conditions as the court or coroner deems appropriate, and may require any person to give evidence that relates to the cockpit voice recording.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “court” includes a person or persons appointed or designated to conduct a public inquiry into an aviation occurrence pursuant to this Act or the Inquiries Act.
35. A cockpit voice recording shall not be used
(a) against any person referred to in subsection 36(1) in any legal or other proceedings except civil proceedings; or
(b) against any person in any disciplinary proceedings or proceedings with respect to the capacity or competency of any officer or employee to carry out his duties and functions.
36. (1) In this section, “air traffic control recording” means the whole or any part of any recording, transcript or substantial summary of voice communications respecting matters of air traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, air traffic controllers, aircraft crew members, vehicle operators, flight service station specialists and persons who relay air traffic control messages.
(2) Any air traffic control recording that relates to an aviation occurrence being investigated under this Act shall be released to the Board or an investigator who requires access thereto for the purposes of an investigation by the Board under this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and except as required by law, the Board or any person referred to in subsection (2) or (5) shall not knowingly release or permit to be released any air traffic control recording obtained under this Act to any person.
(4) The Board may make such use of any air traffic control recording obtained under this Act as it considers necessary in the interests of aviation safety.
(5) The Board shall release any air traffic control recording obtained under this Act to
(a) a peace officer authorized by law to gain access thereto;
(b) a coroner who requires access thereto for the purpose of an investigation he is conducting; or
(c) any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 17 or appointed by the Minister of Transport pursuant to subsection 26(2) who requires access thereto in order to carry out his duties and functions.
(6) An air traffic control recording obtained under this Act shall not be used against any person referred to in subsection (1) in any criminal proceedings or, subject to any applicable collective agreement, in any disciplinary proceedings.
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3:
privilege
28. (1) In this section, “on‑board recording” means the whole or any part of a recording of
(a) voice communications originating from, or received on or in,
(i) the flight deck of an aircraft,
(ii) the bridge or a control room of a ship, or
(iii) the cab of a locomotive,
(b) audio signals identifying navigation aids or approach aids received on or in a place mentioned in paragraph (a), or
(c) any other sound within the aural environment of a place mentioned in paragraph (a),
that is made on the flight deck of the aircraft, on the bridge or in a control room of the ship or in the cab of the locomotive, as the case may be, and includes a transcript or substantial summary of such a recording.
(2) Every on‑board recording is privileged and, except as provided by this section, no person, including any person to whom access is provided under this section, shall
(a) knowingly communicate an on‑board recording or permit it to be communicated to any person; or
(b) be required to produce an on‑board recording or give evidence relating to it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
(3) Any on‑board recording that relates to a transportation occurrence being investigated under this Act shall be released to an investigator who requests it for the purposes of the investigation.
(4) The Board may make such use of any on‑board recording obtained under this Act as it considers necessary in the interests of transportation safety, but, subject to subsection (5), shall not knowingly communicate or permit to be communicated to anyone any portion thereof that is unrelated to the causes or contributing factors of the transportation occurrence under investigation.
(5) The Board shall make available any on‑board recording obtained under this Act to
(a) a peace officer authorized by law to gain access thereto;
(b) a coroner who requests access thereto for the purpose of an investigation that the coroner is conducting; or
(c) any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 18 or designated as an observer by the Minister of Transport under subsection 23(2).
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where, in any proceedings before a court or coroner, a request for the production and discovery of an on‑board recording is made, the court or coroner shall
(a) cause notice of the request to be given to the Board, if the Board is not a party to the proceedings;
(b) in camera, examine the on‑board recording and give the Board a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect thereto; and
(c) if the court or coroner concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the on‑board recording by virtue of this section, order the production and discovery of the on‑board recording, subject to such restrictions or conditions as the court or coroner deems appropriate, and may require any person to give evidence that relates to the on‑board recording.
(7) [see the disposition reproduced after subsection 28(8) hereinafter]
(8) For the purposes of subsection (6), “court” includes a person or persons appointed or designated to conduct a public inquiry into a transportation occurrence pursuant to this Act or the Inquiries Act.
(7) An on‑board recording may not be used against any of the following persons in disciplinary proceedings, proceedings relating to the capacity or competence of an officer or employee to perform the officer’s or employee’s functions, or in legal or other proceedings except civil proceedings, namely, air or rail traffic controllers, marine traffic regulators, aircraft, train or ship crew members (including, in the case of ships, masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), airport vehicle operators, flight service station specialists, and persons who relay messages respecting air or rail traffic control, marine traffic regulation, or related matters.
29. (1) In this section, “communication record” means the whole or any part of any record, recording, copy, transcript or substantial summary of
(a) any type of communications respecting air traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, air traffic controllers, aircraft crew members, airport vehicle operators, flight service station specialists and persons who relay messages respecting air traffic control or related matters,
(b) any type of communications respecting rail traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, rail traffic controllers, train crew members, maintenance of way employees, signal maintainers, vehicle operators and persons who relay messages respecting rail traffic control or related matters,
(c) any type of communications respecting marine traffic regulation or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, marine traffic regulators, ship crew members (including masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), and staff of Coast Guard radio stations, rescue coordination centres and subcentres and harbour master offices, or
(d) any type of communications respecting maritime distress, maritime safety or related matters
(i) that take place between any of the following persons, namely, Coast Guard radio station operators, ship crew members (including masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), and staff of vessel traffic services centres, rescue coordination centres and subcentres, harbour master offices and ship agents’ offices, or
(ii) that take place between any person on shore and a ship via Coast Guard radio station.
(2) Any communication record that relates to a transportation occurrence being investigated under this Act shall be released to an investigator who requests it for the purposes of the investigation.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and except as required by law, the Board or any person referred to in subsection (2) or (5) shall not knowingly communicate or permit to be communicated to any person a communication record obtained under this Act.
(4) The Board may make such use of any communication record obtained under this Act as it considers necessary in the interests of transportation safety.
(5) The Board shall make available any communication record obtained under this Act to
(a) a peace officer authorized by law to gain access thereto;
(b) a coroner who requests access thereto for the purpose of an investigation that the coroner is conducting; or
(c) any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 18 or designated as an observer by the Minister of Transport under subsection 23(2).
(6) A communication record obtained under this Act shall not be used against any person referred to in subsection (1) in any criminal proceedings or, subject to any applicable collective agreement, in any disciplinary proceedings.
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3, as amended
privilege
28. (1) In this section, “on‑board recording” means the whole or any part of
(a) a recording of voice communications originating from, or received on or in,
(i) the flight deck of an aircraft,
(ii) the bridge or a control room of a ship,
(iii) the cab of a locomotive, or
(iv) the control room or pumping station of a pipeline, or
(b) a video recording of the activities of the operating personnel of an aircraft, ship, locomotive or pipeline
that is made, using recording equipment that is intended to not be controlled by the operating personnel, on the flight deck of the aircraft, on the bridge or in a control room of the ship, in the cab of the locomotive or in a place where pipeline operations are carried out, as the case may be, and includes a transcript or substantial summary of such a recording.
(2) Every on‑board recording is privileged and, except as provided by this section, no person, including any person to whom access is provided under this section, shall
(a) knowingly communicate an on‑board recording or permit it to be communicated to any person; or
(b) be required to produce an on‑board recording or give evidence relating to it in any legal, disciplinary or other proceedings.
(3) Any on‑board recording that relates to a transportation occurrence being investigated under this Act shall be released to an investigator who requests it for the purposes of the investigation.
(4) The Board may make such use of any on‑board recording obtained under this Act as it considers necessary in the interests of transportation safety, but, subject to subsection (5), shall not knowingly communicate or permit to be communicated to anyone any portion thereof that is unrelated to the causes or contributing factors of the transportation occurrence under investigation or to the identification of safety deficiencies.
(5) The Board shall make available any on‑board recording obtained under this Act to
. . .
(b) a coroner who requests access thereto for the purpose of an investigation that the coroner is conducting; or
(c) any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 18.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where, in any proceedings before a court or coroner, a request for the production and discovery of an on‑board recording is made, the court or coroner shall
(a) cause notice of the request to be given to the Board, if the Board is not a party to the proceedings;
(b) in camera, examine the on‑board recording and give the Board a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect thereto; and
(c) if the court or coroner concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the on‑board recording by virtue of this section, order the production and discovery of the on‑board recording, subject to such restrictions or conditions as the court or coroner deems appropriate, and may require any person to give evidence that relates to the on‑board recording.
(7) [see the disposition reproduced after subsection 28(8) hereinafter]
(8) For the purposes of subsection (6), “court” includes a person or persons appointed or designated to conduct a public inquiry into a transportation occurrence pursuant to this Act or the Inquiries Act.
(7) An on‑board recording may not be used against any of the following persons in disciplinary proceedings, proceedings relating to the capacity or competence of an officer or employee to perform the officer’s or employee’s functions, or in legal or other proceedings, namely, air or rail traffic controllers, marine traffic regulators, aircraft, train or ship crew members (including, in the case of ships, masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), airport vehicle operators, flight service station specialists, persons who relay messages respecting air or rail traffic control, marine traffic regulation or related matters and persons who are directly or indirectly involved in the operation of a pipeline.
29. (1) In this section, “communication record” means the whole or any part of any record, recording, copy, transcript or substantial summary of
(a) any type of communications respecting air traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, air traffic controllers, aircraft crew members, airport vehicle operators, flight service station specialists and persons who relay messages respecting air traffic control or related matters,
(b) any type of communications respecting rail traffic control or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, rail traffic controllers, train crew members, maintenance of way employees, signal maintainers, vehicle operators and persons who relay messages respecting rail traffic control or related matters,
(c) any type of communications respecting marine traffic regulation or related matters that take place between any of the following persons, namely, marine traffic regulators, persons designated under subsection 58(1) or section 76, 99 or 106 of the Canada Marine Act, ship crew members (including masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), and staff of Coast Guard radio stations, rescue coordination centres and subcentres and harbour master offices;
(d) any type of communications respecting maritime distress, maritime safety or related matters
(i) that take place between any of the following persons, namely, Coast Guard radio station operators, ship crew members (including masters, officers, pilots and ice advisers), and staff of vessel traffic services centres, persons designated under subsection 58(1) or section 76, 99 or 106 of the Canada Marine Act, rescue coordination centres and subcentres, harbour master offices and ship agents’ offices, or
(ii) that take place between any person on shore and a ship via a Coast Guard radio station, or
(e) any type of communication respecting the operation of a pipeline that takes place between persons who are control room personnel, pumping station personnel, operating personnel or members of a maintenance crew or an emergency response crew.
(6) A communication record obtained under this Act shall not be used against any person referred to in subsection (1) in any legal proceedings or, subject to any applicable collective agreement, in any disciplinary proceedings.