Key Takeaways
- The Attorney General of Canada has applied to a federal court to block disclosure of certain evidence in the criminal case against Iain Hunt, citing national‑security concerns.
- Iain Hunt faces a single charge of indignity to human remains linked to the 2021 homicide of his wife, Trina Hunt, whose body was found near Hope, B.C.
- The application was filed in March 2026 under subsection 38.04(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, which permits the government to protect information that could harm international relations, national defence, or national security if revealed in court.
- Former CSIS officer Michel Juneau‑Katsuya described the use of this provision as “extremely unusual” and noted the hearing will be ex‑parte (without the defence present).
- No date has been set for the hearing, and the Attorney General of British Columbia declined to comment on matters before the court.
Background of the Case
Trina Hunt was reported missing by her husband, Iain Hunt, on January 18, 2021, from their home in the Heritage Mountain neighbourhood of Port Moody, B.C. Her remains were later discovered near Hope, B.C., and the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) confirmed her death was a homicide, although investigators have not disclosed the specific evidence leading to that conclusion. No one has been charged with Trina Hunt’s killing to date.
Charge Against Iain Hunt
In February 2025, more than four years after Trina’s remains were found, Iain Hunt was charged with one count of indignity to human remains. According to police, this offence occurs when a person neglects the legal duty to bury a dead body or interferes in an improper, indecent, or undignified manner with human remains. The Crown alleges that Iain Hunt interfered with Trina’s remains on January 16, 2021—two days before he reported her missing.
Attorney General’s Application
In March 2026, the Attorney General of Canada filed an application with the Federal Court seeking an order that would prohibit the disclosure of certain information in the proceedings against Iain Hunt. The Department of Justice Canada stated the request is made pursuant to subsection 38.04(1) of the Canada Evidence Act and aims to prevent an injury to national security. The statement emphasized that the application is intended to confirm a prohibition on revealing specific details that could jeopardize national security interests.
Legal Basis under the Canada Evidence Act
Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act governs the protection and use of information that could harm international relations, national defence, or national security if publicly disclosed during legal proceedings. Subsection 38.04(1) allows the Attorney General to apply for a court order that restricts disclosure of such sensitive material. The provision is designed to balance the openness of the justice system with the need to safeguard state secrets, and it requires judicial approval before any restriction can be imposed.
National Security Justification
The government has not disclosed precisely what evidence it seeks to protect, only that releasing it could pose a risk to national security. This broad wording reflects the sweeping definition of national security under Canadian law, which can encompass intelligence operations, covert agents, diplomatic relations, or defence capabilities. Consequently, observers can only speculate whether the protected information pertains to a specific operation, an undercover asset, or another sensitive matter tied to the case.
Expert Commentary on Unusual Use
Michel Juneau‑Katsuya, a former CSIS officer, characterized the invocation of Section 38 as “extremely unusual,” noting that the mechanism is not intended for routine use. He explained that the application will be heard ex‑parte—meaning the defence will not be present—because the government wishes to keep the contested information secret from both the public and the accused. Juneau‑Katsuya suggested that the situation creates a tactical imbalance: Iain Hunt may possess information the state wants to conceal, potentially giving him leverage in the proceedings.
Procedural Implications (Ex‑parte hearing)
Because the application is made without the defence present, the judge will consider solely the government’s arguments and any supporting affidavits before deciding whether to grant the prohibition. If granted, the order would prevent Crown prosecutors, the defence, and the public from accessing certain documents or testimony deemed detrimental to national security. Such a restriction could limit the defence’s ability to challenge evidence, raising concerns about fairness and transparency in the judicial process.
Current Status and Next Steps
As of the latest update, no hearing date has been scheduled to review the Attorney General’s application. The Attorney General of British Columbia has declined to comment on matters currently before the court, adhering to the customary practice of avoiding pre‑judicial statements. The case remains under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Prosecution Service, while the federal government pursues its national‑security‑based confidentiality request.
Broader Context and Implications
This development highlights the tension between open justice and state secrecy, especially in cases where alleged criminal conduct intersects with sensitive intelligence matters. The use of a national‑security shield in a relatively ordinary‑looking charge of indignity to human remains raises questions about the scope and oversight of Section 38 applications. Legal scholars and civil‑rights advocates may scrutinize whether the government is employing the provision appropriately or leveraging it to impede a defendant’s right to a full defence. The outcome of the forthcoming judicial review could set a precedent for how Canada balances prosecutorial transparency with the protection of classified information in future proceedings.