Order has been Restored: Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Common Interest Privilege

Order has been Restored:  Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Common Interest Privilege

Candice Chan-Glasgow

Director, Document Review Services

March 27, 2018

 

In Iggillis Holdings Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2018 FCA 51 (CanLII), a highly anticipated decision released earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a Federal Court decision which found that common interest privilege “is not a legitimate or acceptable application of solicitor-client privilege”.

 

In this case, Abacus Capital (“Abacus”) structured a series of transactions to acquire the shares of the corporations that were previously held by IGGillis Holdings Inc. and Ian Gillis (collectively, “Gillis”).  Abacus’ lawyer, with input from Gillis’ lawyer, prepared a memorandum outlining the steps to purchase the shares in the most tax-efficient manner (the “Abacus Memo”). … Read More

Federal Court of Appeal: No Public Interest Class Privilege

Federal Court of Appeal:  No Public Interest Class Privilege

Candice Chan-Glasgow

Director, Document Review Services

February 26, 2018

 

In Vancouver Airport Authority v. Commissioner of Competition, 2018 FCA 24, the Federal Court of Appeal denied the Commissioner of Competition a public interest class privilege over documents obtained during an investigation.

 

The investigation related to the Airport Authority’s decision to allow only two in-flight caterers to operate at the Vancouver International Airport.  The Commissioner alleged that the Airport Authority behaved in an anti-competitive manner, resulting in “higher prices, dampened innovation and lower service quality”.

 

The Commissioner’s initial affidavit of documents listed 11,500 relevant documents.  Approximately 9,500 of these records were withheld on the basis of an alleged public interest class privilege. … Read More

Redacting Non-Relevant Information

Redacting Non-Relevant Information

Candice Chan-Glasgow

Director, Document Review Services

January 29, 2018

 

Earlier this month, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the general principles applicable to the redaction of relevant documents.  In Qaddoura et al. v. Walkom et al., 2018 ONSC 20, the defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals given at her continued examination for discovery.

 

The plaintiff’s claim related to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident and involved a significant claim with respect to loss of income and future care costs.  The plaintiff undertook to provide the defendants with updated records from her family physician.… Read More

eDiscovery, keyword searching and … Family Law?

eDiscovery, keyword searching and … Family Law?

Candice Chan-Glasgow

Director, Document Review Services

December 19, 2017

 

In a previous blog post “Estates in the Digital Age: Debunking E-Discovery Myths in Estate Litigation” we discussed the application of electronic evidence principles to estate litigation, and noted that electronic discovery principles are not limited to large scale commercial disputes.  A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision demonstrates, once again, that eDiscovery spans multiple areas of law.

 

In Leitch v. Novac, 2017 ONSC 6888, the Applicant, Jennifer, filed an application for, amongst other things, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.  The parties separated on September 29, 2012 after approximately 15 years of marriage. … Read More

Fee Estimate Upheld in FOI Appeal

Fee Estimate Upheld in FOI Appeal

In an important decision for public bodies, a recent Information and Privacy Commissioner decision upheld a fee estimate for the search and redactions of electronic information.

 

In this case, the requester sought access to “… all records regarding two aboriginal children refusing chemotherapy at McMaster Children’s Hospital and the resulting Ontario court family division case between Hamilton Health Sciences and Brant Child and Family Services including but not limited to records regarding the Nov. 14, 2014 decision and April 24, 2015 clarification.”  The requester later clarified that this request did not extend to clinical records or records subject to solicitor-client privilege.… Read More