In May 2012, a former research assistant contacted the Montréal police about an interview he had conducted with Luka Magnotta for the SSHRC-funded research project Sex Work and Intimacy: Escorts and their Clients four years previously. That call ultimately resulted in the Parent and Bruckert v R and Magnotta case. Now, a decade later, we are positioned to reflect on the collective lessons learned (and lost) from the case. In this paper, we provide a lay of the Canadian confidentiality landscape before teasing out ten lessons from Parent c R. To do so, we draw on personal archives, survey results from sixty researchers, twelve key informant interviews with qualitative sociolegal and criminology researchers, and documentary analysis of university research policies. The lessons, which range from the clichéd, to the practical, to the frustrating, have implications for the individual work of Canadian researchers and for the collective work of academic institutions.

There have been two significant legal challenges to research confidentiality in Canada. The first occurred because of a Coroner’s subpoena, with the researcher invoking the Wigmore criteria and winning a researcher-participant privilege. A second case saw two University of Ottawa researchers served with a search warrant for the tape and transcript of an interview they had conducted years earlier with an individual subsequently accused of murder. The researchers defended research confidentiality in Quebec Superior Court, winning a qualified researcher-participant privilege in the process. This article discusses implications of the court’s decision for researchers, research ethics boards, and universities for the future defence of research confidences. All have a role to play in designing research that anticipates the court’s evidentiary requirements when a claim of privilege is invoked to help ensure future jurisprudence is as favourable to research participants and as respectful of academic freedom as possible.

Current Canadian law, by silence rather than explicit choice, does not prevent anonymous sperm donation. Anonymous sperm donation, however, may soon disappear. In the recent Pratten decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia determined that anonymity violates the constitutional rights of children born of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs). While finding that children should have access to genetic knowledge, the court failed to consider the impact of the elimination of anonymity on other parties to ARTs, both sperm donors and ART families. The case was appealed by the Attorney General of British Columbia and heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in February 2012 and was overturned. While agreeing with the decision of the Court of Appeal, this article argues that the court failed to provide a fulsome analysis of issues related to privacy, genetic knowledge, alternative family formation, and the false assertion that sperm donation makes a man a father.