Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2004) 325 N.R. 315 (FCA)

JudgeDécary, Létourneau, and Pelletier, JJ.A.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateMay 31, 2004
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2004), 325 N.R. 315 (FCA);2004 FCA 287

Blank v. Can. (2004), 325 N.R. 315 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. SE.015

Sheldon Blank (appellant/respondent in cross-appeal) v. The Minister of Justice (respondent/appellant in cross-appeal)

(A-233-03; 2004 FCA 287)

Indexed As: Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Létourneau, and Pelletier, JJ.A.

September 8, 2004.

Summary:

In October 1997 Blank, a director of Gate­way Industries, applied under the Access to Information Act to obtain all records pertaining to his prosecution and the prose­cution of Gateway Industries for regulatory offences under the Fisheries Act and Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations. Blank was never convicted as the initial charges were quashed and a second set of charges were ultimately stayed by the Crown. Blank and Gateway sued the federal government for damages, alleging fraud, conspiracy, perjury and abuse of its prosecutorial powers. It was in both the context of the penal prosecution and the civil lawsuit that Blank sought to access government records pursuant to the Act. Certain material was released, however other documents were withheld for reasons of solicitor client privilege and on the basis of exemptions in the Access to Information Act. Blank complained to the Information Commissioner (Commissioner) which re­sulted in the release of some, but not all the requested material. Blank sought a review of this decision under s. 41 of the Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, ordered the additional release of cer­tain, but not all the remaining documents. Blank appealed, raising issues respecting the application of the exemptions (ss. 13, 19 and 21) and the application of solicitor-client privilege under s. 23 of the Act. Blank also raised an issue respecting the powers of a reviewing judge under s. 46 of the Act on an application under s. 41. The Crown cross-appealed, raising the issue of whether litiga­tion privilege within the meaning of s. 23 expired when litigation ended.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, except with respect to an issue re­specting severance which was referred to the motions court to ensure that the mandatory requirements of s. 25 of the Act were com­plied with. The court, Letourneau, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the cross-appeal. The court held that the litigation privilege in s. 23 of the Access to Information Act applied only to records which were privileged at the time the request for disclosure was made. The weight of authority favoured the conclu­sion that litigation privilege was extinguished when the litigation which gave rise to it came to a conclusion, subject to the pos­si­bil­ity of defining that litigation more broadly than the particular proceeding which gave rise to the claim. Therefore, s. 23 did not apply to those documents in this case for which solicitor-client privilege was claimed because they lost their privileged status when the criminal prosecution ended. Section 23 did not exempt from disclosure under the Act documents which were not subject to solicitor-client privilege at the time the application was made, even if those docu­ments were the subject of the litigation privilege at some other time.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - Section 23 of the Access to Information provided that "the head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record re­quested under this Act that contains infor­mation that is subject to solicitor-client privilege" - The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 23 included the two branches of solicitor-client privilege, namely legal advice privilege and the litigation privilege - Further, s. 23 applied only to records which were privileged at the time the application for disclosure was made - The court stated that "on balance, the weight of authority favours the conclusion that litiga­tion privilege is extinguished when the litigation which gave rise to it comes to a conclusion, subject to the possibility of defining that litigation more broadly than the particular proceeding which gave rise to the claim" - See paragraphs 80 to 89.

Crown - Topic 7203

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Solicitor-client privilege (incl. Crown counsel) - In Oc­tober 1997 Blank, a company director, applied under the Access to Information Act for records pertaining to his and his company's prosecution under fisheries legislation - Blank was never convicted as the charges were quashed or stayed - Blank thereafter sued the federal government for damages, alleging fraud, conspiracy, etc. - It was in both the context of the penal prosecution and the civil lawsuit that Blank sought to access the records - The Crown withheld certain documents claim­ing solici­tor-client privilege under s. 23 of the Act - The Federal Court of Appeal held that generally litigation privilege was extin­guished when the litigation which gave rise to it came to an end - Therefore, s. 23 did not apply to the documents in this case because they lost their privileged status when the criminal prosecution ended - Section 23 did not exempt from dis­closure under the Act documents which were not subject to solicitor-client privilege at the time the application was made, even if those documents were the subject of the litigation privilege at some other time - See paragraphs 80 to 102.

Crown - Topic 7283

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Practice - Evidence and proof - Section 46 of the Access to Information Act provided that the court, in the course of proceedings under ss. 41, 42 or 44 of the Act, could examine any record to which the Act applied that was under the control of a government institution - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the power of the court under s. 46 of the Act -See paragraphs 75 to 77.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents -Attorney-client communications (legal advice privilege) - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the scope and contents of the solicitor-client privilege at common law - The court explained that at common law solicitor-client privilege had two branches; (1) the legal advice privilege (i.e., the solicitor-client privilege covering confidential communications between solicitor and client which entailed the seeking or giving of legal advice, whether contentious or not) and (2) the litigation privilege (known as the "work product doctrine" in the U.S.) which related to the material assembled by a lawyer exercising legal knowledge, skill and industry for the purpose of advising on or conducting anticipated or pending litigation - See paragraphs 17 to 23 and 81.

Practice - Topic 4578

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents -Documents prepared in contemplation of litigation (litigation privilege or work product privilege) - [See Practice - Topic 4577 ].

Cases Noticed:

Stevens v. Prime Minister (Can.), [1998] 4 F.C. 89; 228 N.R. 142; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 85 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 99].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Hodgkinson v. Simms (1988), 33 B.C.L.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27, refd to. [para. 17].

Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada - see Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment) et al.

Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of In­dian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment) et al., [1995] 2 F.C. 762; 184 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 20].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 20].

Borden & Elliot v. R. (1975), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 337 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (2004), 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 20].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 164 O.A.C. 280; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 20].

Maranda v. Richer - see Maranda v. Le­blanc.

Maranda v. Leblanc, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 311 N.R. 357, refd to. [para. 21].

General Accident Assurance Co. et al. v. Chrusz et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 241; 45 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 84].

DuPont Canada Inc. v. Emballage St-Jean ltée, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1429, affd. (2000), 266 N.R. 366 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Belgravia Investments Ltd. et al. v. Canada (2002), 220 F.T.R. 246 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyar RT v. Merck & Co. et al. (1996), 113 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Jewish Congress v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1995] F.C.J. No. 362, refd to. [para. 30].

Jesionowski v. Gorecki and Ship Wa-Yas (1992), 55 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Gower v. Tolko Manitoba Inc. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 20; 238 W.A.C. 20; 2001 MBCA 11, refd to. [para. 30].

Chmara v. Nguyen (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 227; 41 W.A.C. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Opron Construction Co. v. Alberta (1989), 100 A.R. 58; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Global Petroleum Corp. et al. v. CBI In­dustries Inc. et al. (1998), 172 N.S.R.(2d) 326; 524 A.P.R. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Big Canoe et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 125; 220 D.L.R.(4th) 467 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2003), 319 N.R. 200; 189 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 32, 91].

Canadian Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1999] 4 C.T.C. 45; 168 F.T.R. 49 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Jewish Congress v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1996] 1 F.C. 268; 102 F.T.R. 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Grolier Inc. (1983), 462 U.S. 19, refd to. [para. 43].

D.P. v. Wagg (2002), 165 O.A.C. 209; 61 O.R.(3d) 746 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Gateway Industries Ltd. et al. (2002), 169 Man.R.(2d) 300; 2002 MBQB 285, refd to. [para. 63].

Blank et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) (2001), 281 N.R. 388; 2001 FCA 374, refd to. [para. 66].

College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) v. Information and Privacy Commis­sioner (B.C.) et al. (2002), 176 B.C.A.C. 61; 290 W.A.C. 61; 2002 BCCA 665, refd to. [para. 66].

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (President), [1989] 1 F.C. 265; 86 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

3430901 Canada Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Industry), [2002] 1 F.C. 421; 282 N.R. 284; 14 C.P.R.(4th) 449 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Canada (Minister of the Environment) v. Information Commissioner (Can.) (2000), 256 N.R. 162; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 127 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 266 N.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

Legal Services Society (B.C.) v. Infor­mation and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al., [2003] 8 W.W.R. 399; 182 B.C.A.C. 234; 300 W.A.C. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Boulianne v. Flynn, [1970] 3 O.R. 84 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

Meaney v. Busby (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 71 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

Allied Signal Inc. v. Dome Petroleum Ltd. - see Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al.

Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al., [1995] 5 W.W.R. 720; 168 A.R. 132 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84].

Franco v. Hackett (2000), 262 A.R. 127 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 84].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Gher­mezian et al. (1999), 242 A.R. 326 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84].

Petro-Canada v. Ship Mary J (1994), 98 B.C.L.R.(2d) 139 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

Wujda et al. v. Smith (1974), 49 D.L.R.(3d) 476 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84].

Miller (Ed) Sales & Rentals Ltd. v. Cater­pillar Tractor Co. et al. (1988), 90 A.R. 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

London Guarantee Insurance Co. v. Guar­antee Co. of North America, [1995] O.J. No. 4316, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. W.R.D. (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 276; 61 W.A.C. 276; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 474 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 758; 179 N.R. 72; 100 Man.R.(2d) 298; 91 W.A.C. 298, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 96].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 23 [para. 12]; sect. 25 [para. 65]; sect. 46 [para. 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Drapeau, M.W., and Racicot, M.A., Fed­eral Access to Information and Privacy Legislation Annotated 2004, pp. 623 [para. 72]; 637, 642 [para. 38].

Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge, Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (Martin Commit­tee Report) (1993), pp. 180, 181 [para. 47].

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge, Screening, Disclosure and Reso­lution Discussions.

Paciocco, D., and Stuesser L., The Law of Evidence (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 198 [para. 86].

Sharpe, R.J., Claiming Privilege in the Discovery Process, in Law in Transition: Evidence, Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures (1984), pp. 163, 164, 165 [para. 26].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 653 [para. 27].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), para. 14.86 [para. 85].

Watson, G.D., and Au., F., Solicitor-Client Privilege and Litigation Privilege in Civil Litigation (1998), 77 Can. Bar Rev. 315, pp. 330, fn. 68 [para. 22]; 332, 333 [para. 22].

Wilson, J.D., Privilege in Experts' Work­ing Papers (1997), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 346, p. 373 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Sheldon Blank, on his own behalf;

Christopher Rupar, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sheldon Blank, on his own behalf;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Winnipeg, Mani­toba, on May 31, 2004, before Décary, Létourneau and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Fed­eral Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on September 8, 2004, including the following opinions:

Létourneau, J.A., reasons for judgment on the appeal (Décary and Pelletier, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 79;

Pelletier, J.A., reasons for judgment on the cross-appeal (Décary, J.A., concur­ring), Létourneau, J.A. dissenting - see para­graphs 80 to 102.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2006) 352 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 8, 2006
    ...litigation privilege within the meaning of s. 23 expired when litigation ended. The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 325 N.R. 315, dismissed the appeal, except with respect to an issue respecting severance. The court, Létourneau, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the cross-appeal. ......
  • Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 8, 2006
    ...APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Décary, Létourneau and Pelletier JJ.A.), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 403, 244 D.L.R. (4th) 80, 325 N.R. 315, 21 Admin. L.R. (4th) 225, 34 C.P.R. (4th) 385, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1455 (QL), 2004 FCA 287, affirming in part an order of Campbell J., 2003 C......
  • Hudson Bay Mining v. Cummings,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • September 15, 2006
    ...(1998), 114 O.A.C. 245; 22 C.R.(5th) 343 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 99]. Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 403; 325 N.R. 315; 2004 FCA 287, refd to. [para. Hamulka v. Golfman (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 189; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103]. Canada (Attorney G......
  • Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2015 FC 753
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 16, 2015
    ...of Environment), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 689 ; 100 A.C.W.S.(3d) 377 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 70]. Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2004), 325 N.R. 315; 2004 FCA 287 , refd to. [para. Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574 ; 376 N.R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2006) 352 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 8, 2006
    ...litigation privilege within the meaning of s. 23 expired when litigation ended. The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 325 N.R. 315, dismissed the appeal, except with respect to an issue respecting severance. The court, Létourneau, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the cross-appeal. ......
  • Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 8, 2006
    ...APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Décary, Létourneau and Pelletier JJ.A.), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 403, 244 D.L.R. (4th) 80, 325 N.R. 315, 21 Admin. L.R. (4th) 225, 34 C.P.R. (4th) 385, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1455 (QL), 2004 FCA 287, affirming in part an order of Campbell J., 2003 C......
  • Hudson Bay Mining v. Cummings,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • September 15, 2006
    ...(1998), 114 O.A.C. 245; 22 C.R.(5th) 343 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 99]. Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 403; 325 N.R. 315; 2004 FCA 287, refd to. [para. Hamulka v. Golfman (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 189; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103]. Canada (Attorney G......
  • Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2015 FC 753
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 16, 2015
    ...of Environment), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 689 ; 100 A.C.W.S.(3d) 377 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 70]. Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2004), 325 N.R. 315; 2004 FCA 287 , refd to. [para. Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574 ; 376 N.R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT