From globeandmail.com:

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered the National Post newspaper to hand over a document and envelope that could reveal the identity of an individual who tried to “undermine the authority” of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

The ruling came as a blow to several media organizations – including The Globe and Mail – who had argued that handing over the documents would put a chill into the relationship between journalists and their sources – regardless of whether the material in the National Post case was a forgery.

In the ruling under appeal, Ontario Superior Court Judge Mary Lou Benotto prevented police from seizing a forged document in a package that had been mailed to the National Post. Purportedly issued by a bank, the document indicated that former prime minister Jean Chrétien had improperly used his influence.

Police hoped that forensic analysis of the package would yield fingerprints or DNA from saliva on the postage stamp that would identify the sender. However, Judge Benotto ruled that seizing it would violate freedom of the press.

Today, the Court of Appeal emphatically disagreed. It said that “the considerations favouring disclosure of the document and the envelope sharply outweigh those favouring confidentiality. Indeed, as we view the case, the law enforcement interest in disclosure is overwhelming.”

The crime that the perpetrator was attempting to commit was “an especially grave and heinous crime,” the court said.

“Assuming the document was forged, either the forger or some other person sent it to the National Post to create controversy and undermine the authority of a sitting Prime Minister of Canada,” it said. “The National Post itself admitted that if the document was forged, it would be evidence of a criminal conspiracy to force a duly elected Prime Minister from office.”

For good reason, it said, the right of journalists to gather and disseminate the news – and to protect their sources – are protected. However, it said this right “loses much of its force when journalists use it to protect the identity of a potential criminal or to conceal possible evidence of a crime.”

It said that society experts the press to relax its insistence on maintaining a privileged position when it comes to solving serious crimes.

“We do not diminish the press' important role in uncovering and reporting an alleged wrongdoing,” Mr. Justice John Laskin wrote, on behalf of Madam Justice Janet Simmons and Madam Justice Eileen Gillese. “But in our society it is the police who are charged with the crucial role of investigating and prosecuting crime.

Journalists have a valid concern about seeing their sources “dry up” if they are not protected, Judge Laskin said. However, he said that journalists can never off a blanket guarantee of confidentiality.

“There will be some cases – and this is one of them – where the privilege cannot be recognized,” he said.“ Refusing to recognize the privilege in appropriate cases will not, in our view, cause media sources to “dry-up”.

“When viewed at a broad level, we agree with the reviewing judge that the relationship between a journalist and a confidential source should be diligently fostered for the public good. As we have said, some matters of public interest could not be thoroughly investigated or investigated at all without confidential sources of information.”