Canadian Appeals Monitor Information and Commentary on Upcoming and Recent Appeal Court Decisions

Tag Archives: litigation privilege

The Supreme Court of Canada (Clearly and Expressly) Affirms the Importance of Solicitor-Client and Litigation Privilege

Posted in Case Comments, Privilege

In two recent companion decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the importance of litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege to the Canadian legal system. In Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada[1] (Lizotte), the Court recognized litigation privilege as a distinct and fundamental principle of the administration of justice, while in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary[2] (Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner)), the Court focused on issues of solicitor-client privilege. These decisions both confirm that for the legislature to abrogate either litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege, nothing less than clear and … Continue Reading

What Lies Beneath: The Unexpected Reach of Litigation Privilege

Posted in Case Comments, Civil Procedure/Evidence

In an interesting decision clarifying the reach of litigation privilege, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in No Limits Sportswear Inc. v. 0912139 B.C. Ltd., 2015 BCCA 193, has recently held that litigation privilege extends to communications between formerly adverse parties who have settled their dispute and are cooperating against a remaining co-defendant, even where the pleadings have not yet been amended to reflect this new reality.

BackgroundContinue Reading

This Week at the SCC (10/06/2013)

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Opinions Group of McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Posted in The SCC Monitor

This week the Supreme Court of Canada granted two leave applications and rejected another in cases concerning important evidentiary issues.

In Couche-Tard Inc. v. Jacques 2012 QCCA 2266 and Pétrolière Impériale v. Jacques 2012 QCCA 2265, the issue was whether the Quebec Superior Court was correct in ordering the Competition Bureau, a third party to the case, to provide to the parties to a class action recordings of communications intercepted and given to the accused in a previous criminal investigation. The Superior Court had ordered communication of the recordings subject to redaction to protect the privacy of third parties. … Continue Reading