Bank of Montreal v. 3D Properties Inc. et al. (No. 2), (1993) 111 Sask.R. 63 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 20, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 111 Sask.R. 63 (QB)

Bk. of Mtrl. v. 3D Prop. Inc. (1993), 111 Sask.R. 63 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Bank of Montreal (plaintiff) v. 3D Properties Inc. and 5-H Management Co. Ltd. (defendants)

(1990 Q.B. No. 535)

Indexed As: Bank of Montreal v. 3D Properties Inc. et al. (No. 2)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Grotsky, J.

May 20, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants respect­ing a construction loan agreement. The plaintiff served a statement of documents and claimed privilege for 41 of the docu­ments.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruled on which documents were privileged.

Practice - Topic 4570

Discovery - Documents - What docu­ments must be produced - General prin­ciples - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "in this jurisdic­tion, the applicant seeking production of documents need only show that a docu­ment is relevant; thereafter, the onus is on the party claiming privilege to establish his right to refuse production ... The 'broad relevance' test is applicable to the produc­tion of documents ... The 'broad relevance' general principle is that a party is entitled to discovery of a document or record if it directly, or indirectly, enables him/her/it to advance his/her/its own case or to destroy that of his/her/its adversary; or, may fairly lead to a train of inquiry which may have either of these consequences" - See para­graphs 5 to 8.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - Documents - What docu­ments must be produced - Privileged documents - Attorney-client communica­tions - In litigation over a construction loan agreement the plaintiff claimed privi­lege for 41 documents - The documents included letters by the plaintiff to its sol­icitors seeking advice, letters by the solici­tors to the plaintiff containing advice etc. - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed solicitor client privilege - See paragraph 19.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared for purpose of settlement - Letters written without preju­dice - In litigation over a construction loan agree­ment the plaintiff claimed privi­lege for 41 documents - The documents included letters written "without prejudice" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed when such letters are privi­leged - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Mining Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (1990), 83 Sask.R. 19 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Gulf Canada Ltd. v. Horton C.B.I. Ltd. (1990), 85 Sask.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Milton Farms Ltd. v. Dow Chemical Canada Inc. (1986), 52 Sask.R. 264 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Abbas-Hasani et al. v. Regina (City) (1991), 89 Sask.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Cominco Ltd. v. Phillips Cables Ltd. et al., [1987] 3 W.W.R. 562; 54 Sask.R. 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Steier v. University Hospital Board et al., [1988] 4 W.W.R. 303; 67 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ship Consul Corfitzon, [1917] A.C. 550 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Board v. Hedley (Thomas) & Co., [1951] 2 All E.R. 431 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Boxer and Boxer Holdings Ltd. v. Reesor, Gillespie and Norvan Properties Ltd. (1983), 43 B.C.L.R. 352 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Kirschbaum v. Our Voices Publishing Co. et al., [1972] 1 O.R. 737 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bourbonnie v. Union Insurance Society of Canton Ltd. (1959), 28 W.W.R.(N.S.) 455 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Birmingham and Midland Motors Omnibus Co. v. L.N.W. Railway, [1913] 3 K.B. 850, refd to. [para. 15].

Southwark Water Co. v. Quick (1876), 3 Q.B.D. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ainsworth v. Wilding, [1900] 2 Ch. 315, refd to. [para. 16].

Pearse v. Pearse (1846), 1 DeG & Sm. 12; 63 E.R. 950, refd to. [para. 16].

Wheeler v. LeMarchant (1881), 17 Ch. D. 675 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Choate, Clara E., Discovery in Canada (1977), p. 247, para. B347 [para. 15]; p. 249, para. B358 [para. 16]; pp. 252-253, para. B369 [para. 17].

Cross on Evidence (6th Ed. 1985), pp. 388, 389 [para. 18].

Counsel:

E. Churchman, for the plaintiff;

R.D. Watson, for the defendant, 5-H Man­agement Co. Ltd.

This application was heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered judgment on May 20, 1993.