The police informant who was at the heart of the “secret trial” in Quebec is suing authorities for nearly $5.8 million, claiming that the police and a prosecutor undermined confidence in the system that protects these collaborators .
This anonymous informant, described in the lawsuit filed August 28 as the “designated person,” accuses the police of having acted in bad faith by going back on the agreed collaboration agreement, then of having blackmailed him.
“By acting in this way, the police service, the police officers involved and the prosecutor undermine confidence in the judicial system, undermine that of past, current and future police indicators, and ultimately, miserably regress the effectiveness of their mission to stop crime,” the suit states.
The “named person” and another plaintiff, called “X,” are suing the Crown, the police force and three police officers for a combined total of at least $5.8 million in damages.
The pursuit, first reported by the daily The Pressis linked to the secret trial during which the informant was found guilty of participation in a crime that this person had himself revealed to the police.
The existence of this “phantom trial” was only known because this person appealed his conviction, later overturned by the Court of Appeal, in March 2022. Quebec’s highest court then strongly criticized the biggest secret that surrounded the initial trial.
The details of this trial have always remained secret, in particular the nature of the crime and the place where it was allegedly committed, as well as the identity of the judge, lawyers and police forces involved in this case. No file number had been assigned to him.
The security of the informant
According to the civil suit, which has not been tested in court, the “designated person” was recruited by authorities to become an informant because he was related to a “person of interest” to the police. The collaborator was paid for his information provided to the police, in particular for a crime in which the informant admitted his involvement.
After initially ignoring the crime committed by the informant, the police began to investigate, but did not inform the collaborator, the lawsuit document states, even though the police knew that by inquiring about the crime, it endangered the anonymity of the informant.
Police then unilaterally ended the deal with the informant – but met with him one last time to extract more details about the crime, the document states.
“To add insult to injury, the police force then forced [la personne désignée] faced with a grotesque choice: reveal her collaboration with the police department by testifying in a public trial or face criminal charges herself,” the lawsuit reads.
The informant refused to testify publicly and police eventually arrested and charged him; the former collaborator was ultimately found guilty. The accusations have not been made public.
“All indicators become at risk”
The informant appealed and won his case: the Quebec Court of Appeal suspended the conviction and the legal proceedings, emphasizing in its judgment that the initial trial was “contrary to the fundamental principles” of justice.
“This is a unique case in Canadian law, which goes well beyond the specific situation of” the designated person, indicates the document of the damages suit. The alleged conduct is prejudicial to all police indicators […]. Everyone becomes at risk. »
Quebec’s justice minister has previously said the province’s prosecutors were not involved in the case, suggesting the informant had been charged by federal prosecutors. Asked for comment Monday, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said it could not confirm or deny that this was part of the original trial.
Lawyers representing the media, the province’s attorney general and the chief judge of the Court of Quebec have requested partial or complete disclosure of information in the “shadow trial.” But the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in July 2022 that the informants’ right to anonymity took precedence over the principle that legal proceedings be public.
Last March, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the media’s appeal of this decision.
The “named person” in the civil suit is represented by Sebastian Pyzik and Charbel G. Abi-Saad of the Woods firm, one of the best known in Canada. The firm clarified that it was not involved in the criminal aspect of the case. The lawyers said Monday they could not grant an interview.