View source for Solicitor-Client Privilege

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrivilege}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Principles of Fundamental Justice}}

Solicitor-client privilege is a legal doctrine that protects written and oral communications that were made in confidence to a legal advisor for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.<ref>
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqp4 1999 CanLII 676], [1999] 1 SCR 565{{perSCC|Binnie J}} (9:0){{at|49}} [also referred to as R v Shirose]<br> 
''R v Solosky'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mjtq 1979 CanLII 9] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 821{{perSCC|Dickson J}} at p. 835<br>
''R v Basi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2465n 2008 BCSC 1858] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Bennett J}}<br>
</ref>

'''Constitutional Protection'''<br>
Solicitor-client rivilege is not simply a rule of evidence but is also constitutionally protected as a "principle of fundamental justice".<ref>
Canada (National Revenue) v Thompson, [http://canlii.ca/t/grxb3 2016 SCC 21] (CanLII){{perSCC|Wagner and Gascon J}}{{at|17}}<br>
''R v McClure'', [2001] 1 SCR 445, [http://canlii.ca/t/5228 2001 SCC 14] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}} (9:0), at p. 453 to 460<br>
See also [[Principles of Fundamental Justice]]<br>
</ref>

This privilege is the "highest privilege recognized by the courts" which is "fundamental to the administration of justice" and "essential to the effective operation of the legal system".<ref>
''Smith v Jones'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqp9 1999 CanLII 674] (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 455{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{ats|44 and 50}}</ref> Violation of this privilege can "erode the public's confidence in fairness of the criminal justice system."<ref>
''Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v Canada (AG)'' [http://canlii.ca/t/51rj 2002 SCC 61] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 209{{perSCC|Arbour J}} (6:3) at para 49</ref> As accused persons must have confidential access to advice to made properly informed decisions.

'''Consequences of Privilege'''<br>
Solicitor-client privilege is a "class privilege" and presumptively rendered records inadmissible.<ref>''R v McClure'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5228 2001 SCC 14] (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 445{{perSCC|Major J}} (9:0){{at|27}}<Br>
''R v Gruenke'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsjh 1991 CanLII 40] (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 263{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} at p. 286<br>
</ref>

Privileged records are not to be disclosed and are "inadmissible in court”. <ref>
{{supra1|Lavallee}}{{at|24}}<br>
</ref>

'''Burden of Proof'''<br>
The claimant bears the burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that each document asserted to be privileged is in fact privileged.<ref>
''Huang v Silvercorp Metals Inc.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h3s5p 2017 BCSC 795] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Warren J}}{{At|94}}<Br>
''Bank of Montreal v Tortora'', [http://canlii.ca/t/25hb8 2009 BCSC 1224] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Butler J}}{{at|30}}<Br> 
''Raj v Khosravi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gg8lg 2015 BCCA 49] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Smith JA}}{{at|9}}<br>
</ref>

Failure to meet the standard of proof will result in a finding that privilege has not been established.<ref>
{{supra1|Huang}}{{at|94}}<Br> 
Bank of Montreal v Tortora{{supra}}{{at|30}}<br>
Raj{{supra}} at para. 9<Br>
</ref>

'''Who Can Claim Privilege'''<br>
On the client who owns the privilege can raise the issue in court.<ref>
''R v Jack'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npk3 1992 CanLII 2764] (MB CA){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Where it Exists==

Not all work product of a lawyer is solicitor-client privileged and not every communication with a client is privileged either.<ref>
''R v McClure'', [2001] 1 SCR 445, [http://canlii.ca/t/5228 2001 SCC 14] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}}{{at|36}}<br>
</ref>

Where there is any ambiguity or uncertainty as to the application of privilege favour should go to the protections of confidentiality.<ref>
Descoteaux v. Mierzwinski, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpc6 1982 CanLII 22] (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 860{{perSCC|Lamer J}}, at p. 875<br>
Drake Holdings Ltd. v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, [http://canlii.ca/t/ht4q3 2018 ONSC 4494] (CanLII){{perONSC|Schreck J}} at para 17<br>
</ref>

The privilege exists where a written or oral communication is:<ref>''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqp4 1999 CanLII 676], [1999] 1 SCR 565{{perSCC|Binnie J}} (9:0) at para 49 [also referred to as R v Shirose]<br> 
''R v Solosky'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mjtq 1979 CanLII 9] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 821{{perSCC|Dickson J}}, at p. 835<br>
''R v Basi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2465n 2008 BCSC 1858] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Bennett J}} </ref>
#made in confidence or be of a confidential in nature; 
#made to a professional legal advisor; 
#for the purpose of giving and receiving legal advice.

This privilege applies not only between a lawyer and their retained client, but can also apply between a Crown attorney and a police officer seeking legal advice.<ref>''R v Caines'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fnm9l 2011 ABQB 660] (CanLII){{perABQB|Greckol J}}</ref>

Statements taken by an investigator on behalf of the defence is privileged and cannot be subject of disclosure to the crown.<ref> 
''R v Peruta; R v Brouillette'' (1992) 78 CCC (3d) 350  [http://canlii.ca/t/1pf0f 1992 CanLII 3597] (QCCA){{perQCCA|Tyndale JA}}
</ref>

A document received by a lawyer and put the lawyer's file is not automatically privileged.<ref>
''Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v Jones Power Co'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1vhht 2000 NSCA 96] (CanLII); [2000] NSJ No. 258{{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}} at para 36<br>
</ref>

Handwritten notes made by a lawyer on a document will become privileged along with the document upon which the notes were written.<ref>
Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v Jones Power Co.{{ibid}} at para 36<br>
</ref>

Communications through an intermediary will not generally affect its privileged status.<ref>
''R v Littlechild'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp5j5 1979 ABCA 321] (CanLII){{perABCA|Laycraft JA}} at para 15<br>
''Re Alcan-Colony Contracting Ltd. and The Minister of National Revenue'' (1971) [http://canlii.ca/t/g189x  1971 CanLII 405] (ON SC), 2 O.R. 365{{perONSC|Grant J}}<br>
</ref>

Communications with Court-house duty counsel can be included in solicitor-client protections.<ref>
''R v Pea'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1hzg 2008 CanLII 89824] (ON CA){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}
</ref>

'''Presumptions'''<br>
As a general rule, "any information received by a lawyer in his professional capacity concerning his client's affairs is prima facie confidential unless it is already notorious or was received for the purpose of being used publicly or otherwise disclosed in the conduct of the client's affairs.".<ref>
''Ott v Fleishman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23r4h 1983 CanLII 489] (BC SC), [1983] 5 W.W.R. 721, 46 B.C.L.R. 321, 22 B.L.R. 57 (S.C.){{perBCSC|McEachern CJ}}
</ref>

'''Duration of Existence'''<Br>
Privilege will outlast the life of the client.<ref>
''Geffen v. Goodman Estate'', [1991] 2 SCR 353, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsjz 1991 CanLII 69] (SCC){{perSCC|Wilson J}}<br>
</ref>
However, Privilege held by a deceased person can be deemed waived by the court where it is in the interests of justice.<ref>
{{supra1|Jack}}</ref>

'''Communications with Third Parties'''<br>
Communications between a third party and counsel or a client and third party will be privileged only where the communication is "integral to the client-solicitor function".<ref>
''General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz'' (1999), [http://canlii.ca/t/1f9pq 1999 CanLII 7320] (ON CA), 180 DLR (4th) 241 (Ont. C.A.),{{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at paras 124 to 126<br>
''Hoy v Medtronic'', [http://canlii.ca/t/4x53 2001 BCSC 944] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Kirkpatrick J}}
</ref>
Protection will not be extended to those who perform service which are "incidental to the seeking and obtaining of legal advice."<ref>
Hoy{{ibid}} at paras 42 to 43<br>
</ref>

Where the third party is used as an intermediary between counsel and client 

'''Examples of Application of Privilege'''<br>
The following have been considered privileged information:
* Emails between counsel and clients<ref>
''R v 1496956 Ontario Inc. (Stoneridge Inc.)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22v6x 2009 CanLII 12328] (ON SC){{perONSC|Gunsolus J}}
at para 12</ref>
* conversations between counsel and client in the courtroom even if caught on recording device.<ref>
''R v Higham'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rnx3 2007 CanLII 20103] (ON SC){{perONSC|MF Brown J}} at para 21 to 22
</ref>
* phone wiretap between counsel and client <ref>
''R v Martin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2b3ls 2010 NBCA 41] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Richard JA}} at para 64-65</ref>
* identity of person paying legal fees<ref>
''Kaiser (Re)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ftz2s 2012 ONCA 838] (CanLII){{perONCA|Blair JA}} at para 44 to 45</ref>
* lawyer bills and statement of accounts regarding clients<ref>
''Maranda v Richer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rz 2003 SCC 67] (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 193{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0){{ats|21-34}}</ref>
* timing of when advice was given is not privileged<ref>
''Blue Line Hockey Acquisition Co., Inc. v. Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qd80 2007 BCSC 143] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Wedge J}}
</ref>

The following has been considered not to be privileged information:
* client instructions to make a settlement offer<ref>
''Albanese v Albanese'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f26s 1996 CanLII 2674] (BC SC){{perBCSC|Coultas J}}
</ref>

'''Presumptions'''<br>
There is a presumption of confidentiality on all communications and information shared between client and lawyer.<ref>''Foster Wheeler v Societe intermunicipale de gestion et d'elmination des dechets'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1grlx 2004 SCC 18] (CanLII){{perSCC|LeBel J}} (7:0) at para 42<br>
</ref>

There is a presumption of privilege on lawyer's accounts relating to fees paid or lawyer billing.<ref>
''Gault Estate v Gault Estate'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gsc28 2016 ABCA 208] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0), at para 21<Br>
''Maranda v Richer'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rz 2003 SCC 67] (CanLII){{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0)
</ref>

'''Does Not Include Physical Objects or Pre-Existing Documents'''<br>
Privilege will never attach to physical items or any documents that exists independent of the relationship.<ref>
''R v National Post'', [2010] 1 SCR 477, [http://canlii.ca/t/29l77 2010 SCC 16] (CanLII){{perSCC|Binnie J}} at para 65 (" ...there is a significant difference between testimonial immunity against compelled disclosure of secret sources and the suppression by the media of relevant physical evidence. If a client walks into a lawyer’s office and leaves a murder weapon covered with fingerprints and DNA evidence on the lawyer’s desk the law would not allow the lawyer to withhold production of the gun on the basis of solicitor-client confidentiality, notwithstanding the thoroughgoing protection that the law affords that relationship")<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Holder of Privilege==
The privilege belongs to the client and not the lawyer. It can only be waived by their informed consent.<ref>
''R v McClure'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5228 2001 SCC 14] (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 445{{perSCC|Major J}} (9:0) at para 37<br>
''Lavallee, Rackel and Heintz v Canada (Attorney General)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51rj 2002 SCC 61] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 209{{perSCC|Arbour J}} (6:3){{at|39}}<br>
</ref>

The identity of the "client" is a question of fact.<ref>
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqp4 1999 CanLII 676], [1999] 1 SCR 565{{perSCC|Binnie J}} (9:0) at para 67<br>
</ref>

The "client" of any lawyers in the Attorney General's office is the "executive branch of government".<ref>
''Nova Scotia v Peach'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2g0w2 2011 NSCA 27] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Oland JA}} (3:0) at para 12
</ref>
However, the authority to waive privilege is not exclusively held by the Executive Council, such as government Cabinet.<ref> {{ibid1|Peach}} at para 27</ref>

It is the police service, as a whole, and not the specific officer, who holds the privilege on police advice.<ref>
{{supra1|Campbell}}{{at|67}}</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Waiver of Solicitor-Client Privilege==

Generally, solicitor-client privilege should only be interfered with to the extent necessary to achieve a just result.<ref>
''Fraser v Houston'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5hwm 2002 BCSC 1378] (CanLII){{perBCSC|McLachlin J}}{{at|22}} <br>
</ref>

Waiver is established where the possessor of privilege:<ref>
''S. & K. Processors Ltd.'' (1983), [http://canlii.ca/t/23qvs 1983 CanLII 407] (BC SC), 45 B.C.L.R. 218 (S.C.){{perBCSC|McLachlin J}}
</ref>
# knows of the existence of privilege;
# voluntarily evinces an intention to waive that privilege.

'''Party Entitled to Waive'''<br>
Only the client can waive solicitor-client privilege.<ref>''R v McClure'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5228 2001 SCC 14] (CanLII), [2001] 1 SCR 445{{perSCC|Major J}} (9:0) at para 37</ref> 

{{reflist|2}}
===Implied Waiver===
There can be implicit wavier depending on the circumstances.<ref>
''R v Creswell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fndx 2000 BCCA 583] (CanLII), (2000), 149 CCC (3d) 286 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} at paras 41-3<br>
''Chapelstone Developments Inc. v Canada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jchb 2004 NBCA 96] (CanLII), (2004), 191 CCC (3d) 152 (N.B.C.A.){{perNBCA|Robertson JA}} (3:0), at paras 45-6, 49-51, 55, 59 <br>
</ref>

Privilege will be waived without explicit intention where "fairness and consistency" require.<ref>
Fraser v Houston{{supra}} at para 22<br>
</ref>

Inadvertently disclosing privileged information does not automatically result in a waiver of privilege. An implied waiver could be established by knowledge of disclosure of the information and silence in response to disclosing the documents. The court must look at all the circumstances.<ref>
{{supra1|R v Chapelstone Developments Inc}}</ref>

The client cannot be compelled to waive privilege by answering questions in the course of litigation.
<ref> ''R v Creswell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fndx 2000 BCCA 583] (CanLII), 149 CCC (3d) 268{{perBCCA|Ryan JA}} (3:0)</ref>

A waiver of privilege can arise from an accused making allegations attacking competency of counsel using what would otherwise be privileged information.<ref>
''R v Hobbs'', [http://canlii.ca/t/25jsm 2009 NSCA 90] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}} (3:0) at para 21<br>
''R v West'', [http://canlii.ca/t/25nf8 2009 NSCA 94] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}} (3:0) at para 16<br>
</ref> The waiver of privilege only covers evidence concerning the issue alleged.<ref>''R v Dunbar'' [1982] OJ No 581 (ONCA){{NOCANLII}} at 67</ref>

Reliance on legal advice as a defence to a litigation results in the loss of privilege.<ref>
Fraser v Houston{{supra}} at para 22<br>
</ref>

'''Waiver by Conduct'''<br>
Privilege can be waived by conduct of the client.<ref>
''Transportaction Lease Systems Inc. v. Virdi et al'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qd7c 2007 BCSC 132] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Burnyeat J}} at para 17<Br>
</ref>

This can occur with conduct such as:
* where part but not all of the communication between a client and solicitor has been set out before the court.<ref>
Transportaction{{ibid}}{{at|17}}<Br>
</ref>
* where instructions given by client are at issue.<ref>
Transportaction{{ibid}}{{at|17}}<Br>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
===Effect of Waiver===
The existence of waiver does not necessarily mean that all communications become waived. Waiver can be limited to specific subjects.<ref>
e.g. ''R v Marriott'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvtvh 2013 NSCA 12] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Fichaud JA}} (3:0) at para 42
</ref> 
However, waiver of part of a communication will amount to waiver of the entire communication.<ref>
''Fraser v Houston'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5hwm 2002 BCSC 1378] (CanLII){{perBCSC|McLachlin J}} at para 22<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Crown Advice to Police==
The advice of Crown Attorney's to police is solicitor-client privileged.<ref>
''R v Caines'',  [http://canlii.ca/t/fnm9l 2011 ABQB 660] (CanLII){{perABQB|Greckol J}}</ref>

The Crown has the burden to establish an evidentiary foundation that privilege exists.<ref>
''R v Chan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5jpn 2002 ABQB 753] (CanLII), (2002), 168 CCC (3d) 396{{perABQB|Sulyma J}} at para 41<br>
''R v Welsh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1rj9n 2007 CanLII 17641] (ON SC){{perONSC|O’Connor J}} at para 12<br>
</ref>  This would include evidence establishing that the communication was made for the purpose of seeking legal advice.<ref>
see Welsh at para 11 to 13<br>
''Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v Jones Power Co.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1vhht 2000 NSCA 96] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}} (3:0) at para 30<br>
</ref>

There does not seem to be any diminished standard for Crown/Police privilege over regular solicitor/client privilege.<ref>
''R v Trang'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5kch 2002 ABQB 390] (CanLII){{perABQB|Binder J}} at para 18<br>
</ref>

Legal advice by an "in-house" lawyer will be privileged the same way as any other lawyer.<ref>
''Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission)'', [2004] 1 SCR 809, [http://canlii.ca/t/1h2c4 2004 SCC 31] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}} (7:0)
</ref>

crown legal advice provided to assist in developing policy will be protected as privileged.<ref>
''R v Newborn'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gjmsr 2015 ABQB 393] (CanLII){{perABQB|Burrows J}}
</ref>

An officer compelled to answer questions in cross-examination that results in evidence about legal advice he received does not amount to a waiver of privilege between Crown and police.<ref>
see ''R v Rutigliano'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gjm83 2015 ONCA 452] (CanLII){{perONCA|Pardu JA}} (3:0) at para 40
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Exemptions from Solicitor-Client Privilege==
* [[Exceptions to Solicitor-Client Privilege]]

==Other Exemptions==
===Statutory Exemption===
Legislation can exempt documents from solicitor-client privilege protections only where it is "absolutely necessary".<ref>
''Canada (National Revenue) v Thompson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grxb3 2016 SCC 21] (CanLII){{perSCC|Wagner and Gascon J}}(6:0)<Br>
''Canada (Attorney General) v Chambres Notaires du Quebec'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grxb1 2016 SCC 20] (CanLII){{perSCC|Wagner and Gascon J}}(7:0)<Br>
</ref>

'''Law Society Regulation'''<br>
A Law Society has a right to access the privileged records of a member for the purpose of investigating complaints against a member.<ref>
''Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Merchant'', [http://canlii.ca/t/216ss 2008 SKCA 128] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Richards JA}} (3:0), leave to SCC denied<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Consequences for Breach of Privilege==

===Removal of Counsel===
An order removing counsel from a case may be appropriate where one party becomes privy to privileged information.<ref>
''Drake Holdings Ltd. v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ht4q3 2018 ONSC 4494] (CanLII){{perONSC|Schreck J}}{{at|32}} <br>
''Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p0mm 2006 SCC 36] (CanLII), [2006] 2 SCR 189{{perSCC|Binnie J}} at paras. 42 to 67<Br>
</ref>

The objective of removing counsel is not to punish but to ensure that no prejudice is suffered by the parties.<ref>
Celanese{{supra}} at para 54<b>
</ref>

Factors to consider include:<ref>
{{supra1|Drake Holdings Ltd}} at para 33<br>
{{supra1|Celanese}} at para 59<Br>
</ref>
# how the documents came into the possession of the party or its counsel; 
# what the party and its counsel did upon recognition that the documents were potentially subject to solicitor-client privilege;
# the extent of review made of the privileged material; (iv) the contents of the solicitor-client communications and the degree to which they are prejudicial; 
# the stage of the litigation; 
# the potential effectiveness of a firewall or other precautionary steps to avoid mischief.

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Searches Intruding on Solicitor-Client Privilege]]