Litigation Privilege: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - " v. " to " v " |
m Text replacement - "\{\{Fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "Fr:$1" |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Fr:Privilège_en_matière_de_litige]] | |||
{{Currency2|January|2019}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrivilege}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrivilege}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
The purpose of litigation privilege is to create a "zone of privacy" around documents that were made in "relation to pending or apprehended litigation" | The purpose of litigation privilege is to create a "zone of privacy" around documents that were made in "relation to pending or apprehended litigation."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRPC|Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice)|1p7qn|2006 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 SCR 319}}{{perSCC|Fish J}}{{atL|1p7qn|34}}</ref> | {{CanLIIRPC|Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice)|1p7qn|2006 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 SCR 319}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{atL|1p7qn|34}}</ref> | ||
This privilege applies to "communications of a non-confidential nature between the solicitor and third parties and even | This privilege applies to "communications of a non-confidential nature between the solicitor and third parties and even | ||
includes material of a non-communicative nature" | includes material of a non-communicative nature."<ref> | ||
{{ibid1|Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice)}}{{atp|330}} (SCR)<br> | {{ibid1|Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice)}}{{atp|330}} (SCR)<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Litigation privilege protects documents that were should be created in the following circumstances:<ref> | Litigation privilege protects documents that were should be created in the following circumstances:<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRPC|Kennedy v McKenzie|1kw6d|2005 CanLII 18295 (ONSC)|[2005] | {{CanLIIRPC|Kennedy v McKenzie|1kw6d|2005 CanLII 18295 (ONSC)|[2005] OJ No 2060 (S.C.)}}{{perONSC|T Ducharme J}} at 20</ref> | ||
# where the dominant purpose of the document is for existing, contemplated or anticipated litigation; and | # where the dominant purpose of the document is for existing, contemplated or anticipated litigation; and | ||
## was created in answer to inquiries made by an agent for the party's solicitor; or | ## was created in answer to inquiries made by an agent for the party's solicitor; or | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
Once a party decides to call expert evidence, the party shall be deemed to have waived the privilege in relation to the advice given to the party and the materials forming the foundation of that opinion.<ref> | Once a party decides to call expert evidence, the party shall be deemed to have waived the privilege in relation to the advice given to the party and the materials forming the foundation of that opinion.<ref> | ||
see {{CanLIIRP|Stone|1fqn2|1999 CanLII 688 (SCC)|[1999] 2 SCR 290}}{{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{atL|1fqn2|99}} | see {{CanLIIRP|Stone|1fqn2|1999 CanLII 688 (SCC)|[1999] 2 SCR 290}}{{perSCC-H|Bastarache J}}{{atL|1fqn2|99}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Purpose | |||
{{ | The purpose of this type of privilege is to create a "zone of privacy... in relation to pending or apprehended litigation."<Ref> | ||
{{supra1|Blank}}{{atL|1p7qn|34}} | |||
</ref> | |||
It is intended to prevent the opposing counsel to "argue their case...on the wits borrowed from the adversary."<Ref> | |||
{{supra1|Blank}}{{atL|1p7qn|35}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Work Product Privilege | ; Work Product Privilege | ||
Work product privilege (often called "litigation privilege" or "lawyer's brief privilege"<ref> | Work product privilege (often called "litigation privilege" or "lawyer's brief privilege"<ref> | ||
see {{ | see {{CanLIIRP|Card|5k21|2002 ABQB 537 (CanLII)|307 AR 277}}{{perABQB|Perras J}}{{atL|5k21|12}}<br>Prescott, "Litigation Privilege: Scope, Rationale and Critique" CBA Paper [http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/PDF/Mark_Prescott_paper.pdf]</ref>) protects all work product that is "rooted in analysis, not investigation" which comprises the "fruits of the mind not the feet."<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Chan|1hq|2002 ABQB 287 (CanLII)|164 CCC (3d) 24}}{{perABQB|Sulyma J}}{{atL|1hq|95}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
It arises when a lawyer prepares "opinions, theories, analyses of the case, research, internal notes, memoranda or correspondence in the course of employment" | It arises when a lawyer prepares "opinions, theories, analyses of the case, research, internal notes, memoranda or correspondence in the course of employment."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR-N|Brown [Disclosure]|, [1997] OJ No 6163 (Ont. Gen. Div.)}}{{perONSC|Trafford J}}<br> | {{CanLIIR-N|Brown [Disclosure]|, [1997] OJ No 6163 (Ont. Gen. Div.)}}{{perONSC|Trafford J}}<br> | ||
{{supra1|Card}}{{atL|5k21|14}}<br> | {{supra1|Card}}{{atL|5k21|14}}<br> | ||
</ref> | |||
; Notes | |||
Notes made to refresh memory and to facilitate consultation with counsel prior to retaining counsel are captured by litigation privilege.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Abeyewardene|24ntx|2008 CanLII 78103 (ONSC)|[2008] OJ No 5749 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Trafford J}}<br> | |||
</ref> | |||
This will include notes made by an accused, recording his interactions with police that are for the purpose of preserving memories in anticipation of litigation will be protected by litigation privilege.<Ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRx|Sachkiw|g7ght|2014 ONCJ 287 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Dawson J}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Seized Property | ; Seized Property | ||
Property seized and detained under a search warrant cannot be rendered inadmissible only on account of litigation privilege.<ref> | Property seized and detained under a search warrant cannot be rendered inadmissible only on account of litigation privilege.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRxC|Ontario (Provincial Police) v Assessment Direct Inc|hq2ns|2018 ONCA 78 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
===End of Privilege=== | |||
There is no rule of "once privileged, always privileged" when it comes to litigation privilege.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRPC|Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice)|1p7qn|2006 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 SCR 319}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{atL|1p7qn|35}}</ref> | |||
The litigation privilege generally ends when the contemplated litigation and any closely-related litigation ends.<Ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRx|Mitchell|hqcp0|2018 BCCA 52 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Fisher JA}}{{atL|hqcp0|31}} ("Litigation privilege applies to non-confidential communications between a lawyer and third parties, it exists only in the context of litigation, and it ends when the litigation (and all closely-related litigation) has ended.") | |||
</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
==Crown Work Product== | ==Crown Work Product== | ||
The Crown work product consists of written notes and materials "involves thought processes or considerations of Crown counsel in the preparation of its case" | The Crown work product consists of written notes and materials "involves thought processes or considerations of Crown counsel in the preparation of its case."<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Chan|1hq|2002 ABQB 287 (CanLII)|164 CCC (3d) 24}}{{perABQB|Sulyma J}}{{atL|1hq|95}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 68: | Line 93: | ||
Crown work product privilege is not a subset of solicitor-client privilege.<ref> | Crown work product privilege is not a subset of solicitor-client privilege.<ref> | ||
{{supra1|Chan}}{{atL|1hq|65}}<br> | {{supra1|Chan}}{{atL|1hq|65}}<br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Card|5k21|2002 ABQB 537 (CanLII)|307 AR 277}}{{perABQB|Perras J}}{{atL|5k21|20}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Assuming the subject of the claim of privilege is relevant, the presumption is that the documents are not privileged.<ref> | Assuming the subject of the claim of privilege is relevant, the presumption is that the documents are not privileged.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Pickton|2c6cz|2005 BCSC 1258 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Williams J}}{{atL|2c6cz|14}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Work product during the investigative stage will usually not be privileged. At the prosecution stage, however, there is a greater likelihood that it will be privileged.<ref> | Work product during the investigative stage will usually not be privileged. At the prosecution stage, however, there is a greater likelihood that it will be privileged.<ref> | ||
see {{ | see {{CanLIIRP|Trang|5kch|2002 ABQB 390 (CanLII)|315 AR 306}}{{perABQB|Binder J}}{{atsL|5kch|10| to 12}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Simply transferring note-taking duties from the police to the Crown does not automatically protect the notes under Crown Work Produce Privilege.<ref> | Simply transferring note-taking duties from the police to the Crown does not automatically protect the notes under Crown Work Produce Privilege.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRP|Burlacoff|2382s|2009 CanLII 18881 (ON SC)|243 CCC (3d) 504}}{{perONSC|C Horkins J}}{{atL|2382s|17}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Malik|1g4s1|2003 BCSC 1709 (CanLII)|[2003] BCJ No | {{CanLIIRP|Malik|1g4s1|2003 BCSC 1709 (CanLII)|[2003] BCJ No 2973 (BCSC)}}{{perBCSC|Josephson J}}{{atL|1g4s1|10}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Privilege on Interview Notes | ; Privilege on Interview Notes | ||
The Crown cannot claim litigation privilege over interview notes as they are obliged to disclose the notes as relevant evidence.<ref> | The Crown cannot claim litigation privilege over interview notes as they are obliged to disclose the notes as relevant evidence.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Mitchell|hqcp0|2018 BCCA 52 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Fisher JA}}{{atL|hqcp0|51}}<br> | ||
{{supra1|Malik and Bagri}}{{atL|1g4s1|9}}<br> | {{supra1|Malik and Bagri}}{{atL|1g4s1|9}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 92: | Line 117: | ||
==Waiver of Litigation Privilege== | ==Waiver of Litigation Privilege== | ||
As a general rule, a witness who refreshes their memory in court from any document, the opposing counsel is entitled to review it.<ref> | |||
{{ | {{CanLIIRPC|Attorney-General for Ontario et al. C.E.C. Edwards Construction et al.|g1bln|1987 CanLII 4230 (ON SC)|60 OR (2d) 618}}{{perONSC|Wright J}} <br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Dunn|fr776|2012 ONSC 2748 (CanLII)|[2012] OJ No 1988 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Marrocco J}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Fast|26wr0|2009 BCSC 1671 (CanLII)|[2009] BCJ No 2421}}{{perBCSC|N Brown J}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Mugford|fsxtp|1990 CanLII 6504 (NL CA)|[1990] NJ No 210}}{{perNLCA|Marshall JA}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Monfils and four others|g1dxd|1971 CanLII 470 (ON CA)|[1971] OJ No 1725 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Kelly JA}}<br> | |||
{{CanLIIR-N|Lewis|, [1968] BCJ No 105 (BCSC)}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
By using notes to refresh memory prior to testifying may result in a waiver of privilege.<ref> | |||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Sachkiw|g7ght|2014 ONCJ 287 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Dawson J}} - privilege in notes taken on the advice of the father, but the judge found the privilege was later waived.<br> | ||
see also [[Refreshing Memory]] | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 110: | Line 135: | ||
==Common-Interest Privilege== | ==Common-Interest Privilege== | ||
Common-interest privilege is not a privilege that stands-alone. It arises from solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege.<ref> | Common-interest privilege is not a privilege that stands-alone. It arises from solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege.<ref> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRx|Clarke|gg4j6|2015 NSSC 26 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Coady J}}{{atL|gg4j6|25}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The privilege attaches to information that is shared among several individuals with a common interest who are anticipating litigation.<ref> | The privilege attaches to information that is shared among several individuals with a common interest who are anticipating litigation.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRPC|Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v Jones Power Co. | {{CanLIIRPC|Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v Jones Power Co.|1vhht|2000 NSCA 96 (CanLII)|[2000] NSJ No 258}}{{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}}{{atL|1vhht|51}}<br> | ||
{{supra1|Clarke}}{{atL|gg4j6|26}} | {{supra1|Clarke}}{{atL|gg4j6|26}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
==See Also== | |||
* [[Solicitor-Client Privilege]] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:10, 23 July 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2019. (Rev. # 95862) |
General Principles
The purpose of litigation privilege is to create a "zone of privacy" around documents that were made in "relation to pending or apprehended litigation."[1]
This privilege applies to "communications of a non-confidential nature between the solicitor and third parties and even includes material of a non-communicative nature."[2]
Litigation privilege protects documents that were should be created in the following circumstances:[3]
- where the dominant purpose of the document is for existing, contemplated or anticipated litigation; and
- was created in answer to inquiries made by an agent for the party's solicitor; or
- was created at the request or suggestion of the party's solicitor; or
- was created for the purpose of giving them to counsel in order to obtain advice; or
- was created to enable counsel to prosecute or defence an action or prepare a brief.
Once a party decides to call expert evidence, the party shall be deemed to have waived the privilege in relation to the advice given to the party and the materials forming the foundation of that opinion.[4]
- Purpose
The purpose of this type of privilege is to create a "zone of privacy... in relation to pending or apprehended litigation."[5]
It is intended to prevent the opposing counsel to "argue their case...on the wits borrowed from the adversary."[6]
- Work Product Privilege
Work product privilege (often called "litigation privilege" or "lawyer's brief privilege"[7]) protects all work product that is "rooted in analysis, not investigation" which comprises the "fruits of the mind not the feet."[8]
It arises when a lawyer prepares "opinions, theories, analyses of the case, research, internal notes, memoranda or correspondence in the course of employment."[9]
- Notes
Notes made to refresh memory and to facilitate consultation with counsel prior to retaining counsel are captured by litigation privilege.[10] This will include notes made by an accused, recording his interactions with police that are for the purpose of preserving memories in anticipation of litigation will be protected by litigation privilege.[11]
- Seized Property
Property seized and detained under a search warrant cannot be rendered inadmissible only on account of litigation privilege.[12]
- ↑ Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2006] 2 SCR 319, per Fish J, at para 34
- ↑
Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), ibid., at p. 330 (SCR)
- ↑ Kennedy v McKenzie, 2005 CanLII 18295 (ONSC), [2005] OJ No 2060 (S.C.), per T Ducharme J at 20
- ↑ see R v Stone, 1999 CanLII 688 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 290, per Bastarache J, at para 99
- ↑ Blank, supra, at para 34
- ↑ Blank, supra, at para 35
- ↑
see R v Card, 2002 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 307 AR 277, per Perras J, at para 12
Prescott, "Litigation Privilege: Scope, Rationale and Critique" CBA Paper [1] - ↑
R v Chan, 2002 ABQB 287 (CanLII), 164 CCC (3d) 24, per Sulyma J, at para 95
- ↑
R v Brown [Disclosure], [1997] OJ No 6163 (Ont. Gen. Div.)(*no CanLII links)
, per Trafford J
Card, supra, at para 14
- ↑
R v Abeyewardene, 2008 CanLII 78103 (ONSC), [2008] OJ No 5749 (SCJ), per Trafford J
- ↑ R v Sachkiw, 2014 ONCJ 287 (CanLII), per Dawson J
- ↑ Ontario (Provincial Police) v Assessment Direct Inc, 2018 ONCA 78 (CanLII), per curiam
End of Privilege
There is no rule of "once privileged, always privileged" when it comes to litigation privilege.[1]
The litigation privilege generally ends when the contemplated litigation and any closely-related litigation ends.[2]
- ↑ Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2006] 2 SCR 319, per Fish J, at para 35
- ↑ R v Mitchell, 2018 BCCA 52 (CanLII), per Fisher JA, at para 31 ("Litigation privilege applies to non-confidential communications between a lawyer and third parties, it exists only in the context of litigation, and it ends when the litigation (and all closely-related litigation) has ended.")
Crown Work Product
The Crown work product consists of written notes and materials "involves thought processes or considerations of Crown counsel in the preparation of its case."[1]
It will include:[2]
- Crown counsel's notes on a file;
- Crown counsel's memoranda on a file;
- Correspondence;
- Crown counsel's opinion; and
- Trial strategy.
Crown counsel opinion will include legal opinion as well as opinion of the case strength and witness credibility.[3]
It does not include "factual information" such as new facts or material inconsistencies.[4]
Crown work product privilege is not a subset of solicitor-client privilege.[5]
Assuming the subject of the claim of privilege is relevant, the presumption is that the documents are not privileged.[6]
Work product during the investigative stage will usually not be privileged. At the prosecution stage, however, there is a greater likelihood that it will be privileged.[7]
Simply transferring note-taking duties from the police to the Crown does not automatically protect the notes under Crown Work Produce Privilege.[8]
- Privilege on Interview Notes
The Crown cannot claim litigation privilege over interview notes as they are obliged to disclose the notes as relevant evidence.[9]
- ↑
R v Chan, 2002 ABQB 287 (CanLII), 164 CCC (3d) 24, per Sulyma J, at para 95
- ↑
Chan, ibid., at para 96
- ↑
Chan, ibid., at para 96
- ↑
Chan, ibid., at para 97
R v O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), 103 CCC (3d) 1, per L'Heureux-Dubé J, at p. 45 - ↑
Chan, supra, at para 65
R v Card, 2002 ABQB 537 (CanLII), 307 AR 277, per Perras J, at para 20
- ↑
R v Pickton, 2005 BCSC 1258 (CanLII), per Williams J, at para 14
- ↑
see R v Trang, 2002 ABQB 390 (CanLII), 315 AR 306, per Binder J, at paras 10 to 12
- ↑
R v Burlacoff, 2009 CanLII 18881 (ON SC), 243 CCC (3d) 504, per C Horkins J, at para 17
R v Malik, 2003 BCSC 1709 (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No 2973 (BCSC), per Josephson J, at para 10
- ↑
R v Mitchell, 2018 BCCA 52 (CanLII), per Fisher JA, at para 51
Malik and Bagri, supra, at para 9
Waiver of Litigation Privilege
As a general rule, a witness who refreshes their memory in court from any document, the opposing counsel is entitled to review it.[1]
By using notes to refresh memory prior to testifying may result in a waiver of privilege.[2]
- ↑
Attorney-General for Ontario et al. C.E.C. Edwards Construction et al., 1987 CanLII 4230 (ON SC), 60 OR (2d) 618, per Wright J
R v Dunn, 2012 ONSC 2748 (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 1988 (SCJ), per Marrocco J
R v Fast, 2009 BCSC 1671 (CanLII), [2009] BCJ No 2421, per N Brown J
R v Mugford, 1990 CanLII 6504 (NL CA), [1990] NJ No 210, per Marshall JA
R v Monfils and four others, 1971 CanLII 470 (ON CA), [1971] OJ No 1725 (CA), per Kelly JA
R v Lewis, [1968] BCJ No 105 (BCSC)(*no CanLII links)
- ↑
R v Sachkiw, 2014 ONCJ 287 (CanLII), per Dawson J - privilege in notes taken on the advice of the father, but the judge found the privilege was later waived.
see also Refreshing Memory
Common-Interest Privilege
Common-interest privilege is not a privilege that stands-alone. It arises from solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege.[1]
The privilege attaches to information that is shared among several individuals with a common interest who are anticipating litigation.[2]
- ↑
R v Clarke, 2015 NSSC 26 (CanLII), per Coady J, at para 25
- ↑
Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. v Jones Power Co., 2000 NSCA 96 (CanLII), [2000] NSJ No 258, per Roscoe JA, at para 51
Clarke, supra, at para 26