The Federal Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision in respect of access to a legal advice memorandum commissioned by the Canadian government regarding a series of Access to Information Requests. Solicitor-client privilege was held to apply to prevent the Commissioner from accessing the memo.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Access to information – Production of records – Prime Minister’s Office – Legal memorandum – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), [2005] F.C.J. No. 926, Federal Court of Appeal, ...

The Court dismissed a petition for a declaration that the sections of the Legal Professions Act, S.B.C. 1998, c.9 and the Law Society Rules allowing a practice review on a solicitor are inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are of no force and effect. The Court further refused to quash the decision of the Law Society’s Practice Standards Committee to conduct a practice review in respect of the Petitioner on the grounds that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and made in bad faith.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Barristers and solicitors – Boards and tribunals – Disciplinary proceedings – Charter of Rights – Application to disciplinary proceedings – Validity of legislation – Judicial review – Natural justice – Disclosure of third party records – Solicitor-client privilege Greene v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2005] B.C.J. No. 586, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 21, ...

An application by the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (“CLO”), for judicial review of an Order and a reconsideration decision issued by an adjudicator of the Respondent Information and Privacy Commissioner, to the effect that the senior adjudicator, David Goodis, be precluded from participating in the judicial review of the Order and subsequent reconsideration decision issued by him regarding a request by Jane Doe, a former client of CLO, for the file created while she was a child client of CLO and where CLO acted as her litigation guardian in two motor vehicle accident cases. The motion was dismissed and the Court considered and dismissed the judicial review application itself.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Privacy commissioner – Standing in judicial review – Statutory interpretation – Adjudication – Crown counsel – Definition – Crown litigation privilege – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Correctness Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] O.J. No. ...

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers judge’s ruling that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (the “Commissioner”) erred in law by failing to find that the release by the Legal Services Society (the “Respondent”) to a local newspaper reporter (the “Appellant”) of the names of the top five “billers” for immigration and criminal matters would breach solicitor-client privilege. The standard of review applied was one of correctness.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Legal Services Society – Solicitor-client privilege – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Privacy commissioner – Standard of review – Correctness Legal Services Society v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1093, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May ...

Ms. Pritchard was terminated from employment with Sears Canada and filed a Human Rights complaint. The majority of the complaint was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Pritchard commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission’s refusal to deal with her complaint. During the course of the review Ms. Pritchard’s counsel requested a legal opinion that was provided to the commissioners by the Commission’s in-house counsel. The Commission argued that the opinion was privileged. The Divisional Court held that the opinion was not privileged. The decision of the three judge panel of the Divisional Court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the opinion was privileged.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review application – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – In-house legal opinion Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 215, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 29, 2003, Finlayson, Charron and Armstrong JJ.A. The issue raised in the appeal was whether a legal opinion prepared ...

Documents, specifically expert reports, created in the course of an investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.165 (the “Act”), because they were “advice or recommendations developed … for a public body”, and exempt pursuant to section 13 of the Act. The documents were not exempt from disclosure on the grounds they were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Freedom of information and protection of privacy – Disclosure – Public body – Definition – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – Expert reports – Legal advice privilege – Litigation privilege – Physicians and surgeons – Disciplinary proceedings – Delay College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2779, ...

A complainant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Baltruweit”) was successful in his application to have the court overturn the decision of the Commission to dismiss his complaint at the investigative stage. The court held that the failure of the Commission to provide Baltruweit with the substance of the evidence of a legal opinion relating to the complaint was a breach of its duty of procedural fairness and the matter was referred back to the Commission for a re-determination.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Evidence – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Hearings – Disclosure – Solicitor-client privilege Baltruweit v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1615, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, November 19, 2002, Gibson J. Baltruweit was employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence ...