Why the history-making Ortis espionage trial left prosecutors 'walking on eggshells'
CBC
When jurors convicted former RCMP official Cameron Ortis of leaking secret information to police targets earlier this week, they didn't just seal his fate — they made history.
Ortis's trial was the first to test charges under the 20-year-old Security of Information Act in court.
"We learned that offences can be contested and successfully prosecuted, which we did not know before, which is great. We also learned that it takes a lot of creativity and flexibility," said Leah West, who teaches national security law at Carleton University.
"I think there's a couple of things about this trial that also make it unique."
The Security of Information Act was born out of Canada's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was adopted by Parliament on Christmas Eve of 2001. It amended and renamed what had for years been known as the Official Secrets Act.
The act makes it an offence to share safeguarded information or "special operational information." It includes harsh penalties for those caught leaking to a foreign entity or terrorist group.
In a verdict delivered Wednesday, Ortis was found guilty of three counts of violating the act and one count of attempting to do so. Jurors also found him guilty of breach of trust and fraudulent use of a computer.
The nature of the case made for an unusual trial. Certain evidence was excluded from the trial due to national security concerns.
And in a rare move, Ortis testified behind closed doors. Members of the public, including journalists, were locked out of the courtroom and had to rely on redacted transcripts.
Crown lawyer Judy Kliewer compared her work during the trial to "walking on eggshells."
"Because of the national security issues, because you're worried about what you can and cannot put into evidence," she said.
Defence lawyer Jon Doody argued the evidence rules handcuffed Ortis's defence.
"It becomes a difficult dichotomy between protecting Canada's national security and prosecuting people who may have offended that act. And so it's a difficult decision and some individuals might argue that in order to protect Canada's national security, you have to give up trying to prosecute someone for it," he told reporters before the verdict.
"It's very difficult to try and walk both lines … and we are seeing that difficulty play out here."