法律翻译 | 加拿大律师——客户间特权判例：政府是否有权要求企业提交员工个人隐私信息？

译者 | 孙书朋 西南政法大学‍‍

一审 | 孙济民 中国人民大学

二审 | 何兰子夜 宾夕法尼亚大学

编辑 | 吴萌 上海外国语大学‍‍‍‍

责编 |李薇 浙江工商大学

Following her dismissal, an employee asked to have access to her personal employment information because she suspected that the employer had improperly collected inaccurate information and used it to discredit her before its board. The employer denied the request, and the employee filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner seeking access to her personal file. The Commissioner requested the records from the employer in broad terms. All records were provided except for those over which the employer claimed solicitor-client privilege. The Commissioner then ordered production of the privileged documents pursuant to s. 12^[1] of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA"), which confers the powers to compel the production of any records "in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record" and to "receive and accept any evidence and other information ... whether or not it is or would be admissible in a court of law". The employer applied for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. The reviewing judge determined the Commissioner was empowered to compel production of documents over which solicitor-client privilege was claimed in order to effectively complete her statutory investigative role. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the reviewing judge and vacated the Commissioner's order for production of records.

在被解雇后，一位员工怀疑雇主不当地收集了错误信息，并使用该信息在董事会诋毁她，故要求查阅她的个人工作信息。雇主拒绝了这一请求。于是，该员工向隐私专员申诉，要求查阅她的个人文件。隐私专员要求雇主提供广义上的档案。除了雇主声称受律师-客户特权保护的档案外，其它所有文件均已提供。之后，隐私专员依据《个人信息保护和电子文件法》（“PIPEDA”）第12条要求雇主提交受律师-客户特权保护的文件，因为该法授权隐私专员“使用与高等法院相同的方式并在相同范围内”强制相对人提交任何文件，并且“接收和接受任何证据和其他信息…而不论该证据或者信息是否会或者将会为法院所采纳”。雇主申请对隐私专员的决定进行司法审查。司法审查法官认定隐私专员有权强制相对人提交受律师-客户特权保护的文件，从而有效地履行其法定调查职责。联邦上诉法院撤销了司法审查法官所作的裁定以及隐私专员要求提交文件的命令。

（图片来源于网络）

隐私专员是否可以依据《个人信息保护和电子文件法》第12条要求雇主提交受律师-客户特权保护的文件？

Solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system. The complex of rules and procedures is such that, realistically speaking, it cannot be navigated without a lawyer's expert advice. However, experience shows that people who have a legal problem will often not make a clean breast of the facts to a lawyer without an assurance of confidentiality "as close to absolute as possible". Without that assurance, access to justice and the quality of justice in this country would be severely compromised. It is in the public interest that the free flow of legal advice be encouraged.

律师-客户特权对我们法律制度的正常运行起到了关键作用。实际上，如果没有律师的专业意见，（普通人）无法应对复杂的法规和程序。但是，经验表明，当一个人面对法律问题时，只有他的隐私能得到“最接近绝对程度上”保密保证的情况下，他才会将事实与律师和盘托出。如果没有这样的保证，那么在我们国家，司法救济权的获取和司法质量将会大打折扣。因此，鼓励自由流动的法律意见是符合公共利益的。

（图片来源于网络）

When the appropriate principles of statutory interpretation are applied to the general language of PIPEDA, the right of the individual or organization that is the target of the complaint to keep solicitor-client confidences confidential must prevail. The Commissioner is an officer of Parliament vested with administrative functions of great importance, but she does not, for the purpose of reviewing solicitor-client confidences, occupy the same position of independence and authority as a court. It is well established that general words of a statutory grant of authority to an office holder, including words as broad as those contained in s. 12 PIPEDA, do not confer a right to access solicitor-client documents, even for the limited purpose of determining whether the privilege is properly claimed. That role is reserved for the courts. Express words are necessary to permit a statutory official to "pierce" the privilege. Such clear and explicit language does not appear in PIPEDA. 

在运用适当的法律解释原则对《个人信息保护和电子文件法》的一般用语进行解释时，应当优先保障作为被投诉方的个人或者团体所享有的律师和客户之间的保密权利。隐私专员是议会官员，她被赋予了极其重要的行政职能。但是，在审查律师和客户之间的保密权时，她并不享有和法院同等的独立地位和权威性。法律上已经确认，在授予官员法定权力时所用的一般措辞，包括《个人信息保护和电子文件法》第12条所用的广泛的措辞，都没有授权隐私专员查阅律师和客户之间的文件，即便是出于“认定律师和客户间特权的主张是否得当”这一有限目的。法院独享这一特权，除非制定法明确允许官员“打破”这一特权。但是，《个人信息保护和电子文件法》并没有清楚、明确地授予隐私专员这样的权力。

（图片来源于网络）

An adjudication of a claim of privilege by the Commissioner, who is an administrative investigator not an adjudicator, would be an infringement of the privilege. Client confidence is the underlying basis for the solicitor-client privilege, and infringement must be assessed through the eyes of the client. To a client, compelled disclosure to an administrative officer, even if not disclosed further, would constitute an infringement of the confidentiality. The objection is all the more serious where, as here, there is a possibility of the privileged information being made public or used against the person entitled to the privilege. Furthermore, in pursuit of its mandate, the administrative officer may become adverse in interest to the party whose documents it wants to access. Not only may it take the resisting party to court but it may decide to share compelled information with prosecutorial authorities without court order or the consent of the party from whom the information was compelled. 

作为一名行政调查人员而非司法裁判人员，隐私专员就律师-客户特权进行裁判侵犯了这一特权。客户隐私是律师-客户特权的基石，因此我们应从客户的角度审查某一行为是否侵犯了这一特权。对于客户来说，被强制要求向行政官员披露隐私都是对客户隐私保密性的侵犯，即便最终没有进一步披露客户的隐私。本案中，受特权保护的信息有可能被公开或者以不利于权利人的方式被使用，因此我们更有理由反对此种强制披露。再者，行政官员在履行其职责过程中查阅相对人的文件，可能会与该相对人产生利益冲突。该行政官员不仅可能会起诉抗拒信息披露的相对人，也可能会在没有法院命令或者相对人同意的情况下将强制披露的信息分享给公诉机关。

（图片来源于网络）

Here, the only reason the Commissioner gave for compelling the production and inspection of the documents in this case is that the employer indicated that such documents existed. She does not claim any necessity arising from the circumstances of this particular inquiry. The Commissioner is therefore demanding routine access to such documents in any case she investigates where solicitor-client privilege is invoked. In the Commissioner's view, piercing the privilege would become the norm rather than the exception in the course of her everyday work. Even courts will decline to review solicitor-client documents to adjudicate the existence of privilege unless evidence or argument establishes the necessity of doing so to fairly decide the issue.

在本案中，隐私专员强制雇主提交并检查文件的理由仅仅是雇主表示存在该文件。但是，隐私专员并没有说明在这一特定调查情况下，强制要求雇主提交文件的必要性。因此，隐私专员只是在其所调查的任何援引律师-客户特权的案件中，例行要求查阅此类文件。在隐私专员看来，“打破”这一特权是其日常工作中的惯例而非例外。即便是法院也不能为了裁定是否存在律师-客户特权而去查阅律师和客户之间的文件，除非法院有证据或者理由证明为了公正地裁定这一争议而必须查阅此类文件。

（图片来源于网络）

The Commissioner has not made out a case that routine access to solicitor-client confidences is necessary to achieve the ends sought by PIPEDA. There are other less intrusive remedies. Firstly, she may, at any point in her investigation, refer a question of solicitor-client privilege to the Federal Court under s. 18.3(1) of the Federal Courts Act. Secondly, within the framework of PIPEDA itself, the Commissioner has the right to report an impasse over privilege in her s. 13 report and, with the agreement of the complainant, bring an application to the Federal Court for relief under s. 15. The court is empowered, if it thinks it necessary, to review the contested material and determine whether the solicitor client privilege has been properly claimed. This procedure permits verification while preserving the privilege as much as possible.

隐私专员未能证明为了达成《个人信息保护和电子文件法》的立法目的而必须例行查阅律师和客户之间的隐私。事实上，隐私专员可以采取其他对相对人权利影响更轻微的措施。首先，隐私专员可以依据《联邦法院法》第18.3（1）条，在调查的任何阶段请求法院解决律师-客户特权的问题。第二，在《个人信息保护和电子文件法》框架内，隐私专员有权将因律师-客户特权问题产生的僵局写入该法第13条规定的报告^[2]中，并且在和申诉人达成一致后，隐私专员有权依据该法第15条^[3]请求联邦法院采取救济措施。如果法院认为有必要，那么其有权查阅争议材料并裁定援引律师-客户特权是否是适当的。这一程序既实现了查验文件的目标，同时也尽可能地保护了律师-客户特权。

（图片来源于网络）

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

上诉应予驳回。

原文链接：https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cscreports&handle=hein.cscreports/canadalr0207&id=647&men_tab=srchresults