The Supreme Court of Yukon has refused a request for Crown disclosure after the applicant’s criminal case and peace bond had ended, while explaining that a properly supported civil application could raise different questions.
Justice Wenckebach found that Christopher Ledgerwood could not rely on the constitutional right to make full answer and defence to obtain the documents for a possible lawsuit. There was no ongoing criminal prosecution or appeal for which he needed them.
The September 11 ruling, Ledgerwood v HMTK, 2026 YKSC 79, did not decide whether police or prosecutors had treated him improperly. It addressed his request for disclosure in the absence of an existing criminal or civil proceeding.
Charges had been withdrawn
Ledgerwood was charged with two assaults and a firearms offence in December 2021. In April 2023, he agreed to a two-year peace bond and the charges were withdrawn. He did not appeal, and the peace bond ended in April 2025.
He said that although his first lawyer had received further disclosure, neither he nor his final lawyer had reviewed that additional material. After the peace bond ended, he asked the Crown for a copy and was refused.
Ledgerwood argued that his right to full answer and defence had been violated. At the hearing, he also said he wanted the material to prepare a possible civil claim for malicious prosecution or conspiracy.
Wenckebach explained that the Crown’s criminal disclosure obligation supports the defence of an ongoing prosecution. It is not a general right to use the material for other purposes. Restrictions on the use of criminal disclosure also reflect that distinction.
A civil route requires its own basis
The judge did not have sufficient facts or argument to determine whether Ledgerwood should receive the documents to prepare a civil claim. Instead, she outlined principles that could matter in a renewed application.
A Norwich order can sometimes require disclosure before a lawsuit starts. Relevant considerations include evidence of a reasonable claim, the information-holder’s involvement, whether it is the only practical source, compensation for its costs and the interests of justice.
The judge did not direct Ledgerwood to seek such an order. He appeared to have substantial information already and might have enough to start a lawsuit without one.
Criminal disclosure presents additional concerns. Witnesses and others may have given police personal information for an investigation without giving up their privacy for all purposes. The court discussed a civil-disclosure process involving consent from the Attorney General and police or, if consent is withheld, a court application balancing the relevant public interests.
Wenckebach left the precise application of those principles to further submissions. Ledgerwood would also need to consider any undertaking limiting his use of disclosure to defending the criminal charges.
A renewed application should give notice to both the Crown and the RCMP, which have separate legal interests. The petition before the court was denied; the ruling did not decide a future civil claim or guarantee access to the records.
