The Supreme Court ruled in a case whereby a journalist for the National Post was given a document by ‘X’, a secret source who requested a blanket, unconditional promise of confidentiality. The document appeared to be a bank loan authorization from a federally-funded bank to a hotel within Jean Chretien’s riding, which allegedly owed money to Chretien’s family investment company. The journalist divulged the information to the PMO, Chretien’s lawyer and the bank, all three claiming that the document was a forgery. ‘X’ claimed that he or she received the document anonymously in the mail. The RCMP requested the document in order to run forensic testing. The National Post refused and the journalist refused to divulge his source. The RCMP applied for and was issued a search warrant. At the SCC, the National Post “and the supporting intervenors argued that the warrant and the order should be quashed because they infringe s. 2(b) or s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or because the secret sources are protected by the common law of privilege.” The SCC decided (Abbella J. dissenting), that “Although the common law does not recognize a class privilege protecting journalists from compelled disclosure of secret sources, a journalist’s claim for protection of secret sources can be assessed properly using the case‑by‑case model of privilege. The Wigmore criteria provide a workable structure within which to assess, in light of society’s evolving values, the sometimes‑competing interests of free expression and the administration of justice and other values that promote the public interest. This will provide the necessary flexibility and an opportunity for growth that is essential to the proper function of the common law.”