The Law of Privilege in Canada Andrew Wilkinson October 8, 2008
Types of privilege 2 Main types of privilege: Solicitor-client Litigation Settlement There is also common interest privilege, which is more of an extension of other privileges than a separate privilege.
Solicitor-client privilege 3 Three pre-conditions to solicitor-client privilege: a communication between lawyer and client; which entails the seeking or giving of legal advice; and which is intended to be confidential by the parties. Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821
Solicitor-client privilege 4 The privilege extends also to materials directly related to the seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice or legal assistance (e.g., working papers). Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Canada, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27.
In-house counsel and the solicitor-client relationship Legal advice, not business advice, is covered: The lawyer must be providing legal advice or otherwise acting as a lawyer rather than as a business counsellor or in some other non-legal capacity. It does not matter whether litigation is contemplated. Canada v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44 5
In-house counsel and the solicitor-client relationship Legal advice from in-house counsel qualifies: Owing to the nature of the work of in-house counsel, often having both legal and non-legal responsibilities, each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if the circumstances were such that the privilege arose. However, [i]f an in-house lawyer is conveying advice that would be characterized as privileged, the fact that he or she is in-house does not remove the privilege, or change its nature. Pritchard v. Ontario, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809 6
Solicitor-client privilege in Canada 7 This privilege is strongly guarded: Solicitor-client privilege is a principle of fundamental justice and civil right of supreme importance in Canadian law. Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 It must be as close to absolute as possible to ensure public confidence and retain relevance. R. v. McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445
Loss of solicitor-client privilege 8 The privilege belongs to the client and can only be waived by the client or through his or her informed consent. Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 So the client s voluntary disclosure to a third party constitutes waiver; the client s compelled or unintended disclosure does not.
Limited Waiver of Privilege 9 When producing privileged information to auditors, securities commissions, etc., you should document your intentions by way of a limited waiver letter as part of the terms of the engagement or response. Even without a letter, Ont. Div. Court accepted implied limited waiver. Philip Services v. O.S.C., (2005) 77 O.R. (3d) 209 This may not protect you in the USA.
Loss of solicitor-client privilege 10 But loss of the privilege can also occur in the absence of an intention to waive, where fairness and consistency so require. S. & K. Processors Ltd. v. Campbell (1983), 45 B.C.L.R. 218 (S.C.) No privilege attaches to communications that are criminal or made with a view to obtaining legal advice to facilitate the commission of a crime. R. v. Campbell, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565
Litigation privilege 11 Blank v. Canada, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319 is the leading litigation privilege case. The purpose of the privilege is to create a zone of privacy in relation to pending or apprehended litigation so that litigants can prepare their contending positions in private, without adversarial interference and without fear of premature disclosure. Blank (paras. 27 and 34)
Litigation privilege 12 While the solicitor-client privilege has been strengthened, reaffirmed and elevated in recent years, the litigation privilege has had, on the contrary, to weather the trend toward mutual and reciprocal disclosure which is the hallmark of the judicial process. Blank (para. 61)
Litigation privilege 13 Overlap with solicitor-client privilege is likely: The distinction between the solicitor-client privilege and the litigation privilege does not preclude their potential overlap in a litigation context. [A]nything in a litigation file that falls within the solicitor-client privilege will remain clearly and forever privileged. Blank (paras. 49-50)
Litigation privilege 14 Litigation privilege is not restricted to communications between solicitor and client. It contemplates, as well, communications between a solicitor and third parties. Blank (para. 27)
Loss of litigation privilege 15 Absent pending or reasonably apprehended closely related proceedings, litigation privilege ends upon the termination of the litigation that gave rise to the privilege. Blank (para. 36) Closely related proceedings include: proceedings that involve the same or related parties and arise from the same or a related cause of action ; and proceedings that raise issues common to the initial action and share its essential purpose. Blank (para. 39)
Loss of litigation privilege 16 The privilege is also lost when litigation privileged materials are tendered or relied on in court (e.g., when a party calls an expert witness). Vancouver Community College v. Phillips, Barratt (1987), 20 B.C.L.R. (2d) 289 (S.C.)
Settlement privilege 17 [D]ocuments or communications created for, or communicated in the course of, settlement negotiations are settlement privileged. Middelkamp v. Fraser Valley R.E.B., (1992) 71 B.C.L.R. (2d) 276 (C.A.) The protection is broad, and generally includes even a concluded settlement agreement. B.C. Children's Hospital v. Air Products Canada, 2003 BCCA 177
Exceptions to settlement privilege 18 Settlement privilege cannot be claimed where: there are allegations of fraud; or the documents or communications may be required to meet a defence of laches, want of notice, passage of a limitation period or other similar matters. Middelkamp v. Fraser Valley R.E.B., (1992) 71 B.C.L.R. (2d) 276 (C.A.)
Common interest privilege 19 Common interest privilege is better described as a common interest exception to the rule that disclosure of privileged information to a third party waives the privilege. The exception applies where privileged information is confidentially shared among parties sharing a common goal or seeking a common outcome i.e., having a common interest. Pritchard v. Ontario, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809
Common Interest Privilege 20 Legal opinions can be shared without loss or waiver of privilege, where sharing facilitated completion of the transaction because parties were informed of the respective legal positions of others. Pitney Bowes of Canada v. Canada
Common interest privilege 21 When do parties have a sufficient common interest? When they share a united front against a common foe. Supercom v. Sovereign (1998), 37 O.R. (3d) 597 (Gen. Div.) When they wish to see the successful completion of a commercial transaction. Maximum Ventures Inc. v. De Graaf, 2007 BCCA 510 Pitney Bowes of Canada Ltd. v. Canada, 2003 FCT 214 When a fiduciary or like duty has been found to exist between the parties (e.g., in certain types of contractual or agency relations ) Pritchard v. Ontario, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809.
Common Interest Transactional Privilege 22 The common interest exception originated in the context of parties sharing a common goal or seeking a common outcome It has since been narrowly expanded to cover those situations in which a fiduciary or like duty has been found to exist between the parties so as to create common interest. Pritchard v. Ontario, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809.
Common Interest Privilege it is hard to imagine how the requirements of full and true disclosure imposed by securities legislation in Canada could be satisfied if the consequences of such disclosure in merger negotiations are a loss of privilege over highly sensitive and proprietary information. Such an outcome would have a chilling effect on disclosure and would cripple negotiations. 23 Anderson Exploration Ltd. v. Pan-Alberta Gas, [1998] 10 W.W.R. 633; 1998 AJ 575
Loss of common interest privilege 24 When does the common interest exception cease to apply? When the parties become pitted in litigation against each other. R. v. Dunbar, [1982] O.J. No. 581 (C.A.) (QL) The mere fact that the commonly interested parties might, at some point in the future, become adverse in interest is irrelevant. Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd., [1999] 1 F.C. 507 (T.D.) Lessard v. Canosa (1995), 12 B.C.L.R. (3d) 78 (S.C.)
Waiver of common interest privilege 25 The exception does not change the rule that only the party that holds the underlying privilege can waive it. Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd., [1999] 1 F.C. 507 (T.D.)
Lessons from Teleglobe v. BCE - 1 26 BCE funded Teleglobe, but then pulled out Teleglobe s creditors put it into receivership, then sued BCE over the funding US subsidiaries of Teleglobe demanded copies of all outside opinions provided to either of BCE or Teleglobe (Teleglobe relied on BCE for in-house legal services) Teleglobe USA Inc. v. BCE Inc. 2006 US Court of Appeal (Third Circuit 06-2915)
Lessons from Teleglobe v. BCE - 2 27 Does the fact that a parent and subsidiary used the same counsel on a joint retainer entitle other subsidiaries to have access to privileged communications between outside counsel and the parent on a matter that fell outside the joint retainer? Teleglobe USA Inc. v. BCE Inc. 2006 US Court of Appeal
Lessons from Teleglobe v. BCE - 3 28 Decision: While a party to a joint retainer could use the shared privileged communications against the other if they had a falling out, such a party could not disclose the communications to a person who was not a party to the joint retainer. Teleglobe USA Inc. v. BCE Inc. 2006 US Court of Appeal
Lessons from Teleglobe v. BCE - 4 29 In-house counsel urged to avoid joint representations except when necessary and to limit the scale of joint representations. Court suggested separate counsel when the interests of the parent and the subsidiary company diverge. Avoid use of joint representations in spin offs. Teleglobe USA Inc. v. BCE Inc. 2006 US Court of Appeal
Vancouver P.O. Box 10424, Pacific Centre Suite 1300 777 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver BC V7Y 1K2 Tel: 604-643-7100 Fax: 604-643-7900 Ottawa The Chambers Suite 1400 40 Elgin Street Ottawa ON K1P 5K6 Tel: 613-238-2000 Fax: 613-563-9386 Québec Le Complexe St-Amable 1150, rue de Claire-Fontaine, 7 e étage Québec QC G1R 5G4 Tel: 418-521-3000 Fax: 418-521-3099 Calgary Suite 3300 421 7th Avenue SW Calgary AB T2P 4K9 Tel: 403-260-3500 Fax: 403-260-3501 Montréal Suite 2500 1000 De La Gauchetière Street West Montréal QC H3B 0A2 Tel: 514-397-4100 Fax: 514-875-6246 United Kingdom & Europe 5 Old Bailey, 2nd Floor London, England EC4M 7BA Tel: +44 (0)20 7489 5700 Fax: +44 (0)20 7489 5777 Toronto Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6 Tel: 416-362-1812 Fax: 416-868-0673