Brown v. Cape Breton (Regional Municipality), 2011 NSCA 32

• Judge: Saunders, Beveridge and Bryson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 01, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2011 NSCA 32;(2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 84 (CA)

Brown v. Cape Breton (2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 84 (CA);

    955 A.P.R. 84

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.004

Sheri Lyn Brown (appellant) v. Cape Breton Regional Municipality, a body Corporate (respondent)

(CA 334499; 2011 NSCA 32)

Indexed As: Brown v. Cape Breton (Regional Municipality)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Saunders, Beveridge and Bryson, JJ.A.

April 1, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought a negligence action for damages against the defendant for a knee injury suffered when she fell from the bleachers at a municipal ball field in 2002. In 2004, the plaintiff further injured her knee when struck by a motor vehicle. She sued the driver involved. After discoveries in the first action, the plaintiff settled the second action. The defendant moved for disclosure of the settlement agreement and related correspondence.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment not reported in this series of reports, allowed the motion and ordered disclosure of all settlement information on the ground that the information was relevant and necessary, particularly to avoid overcompensating the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Where the limited medical evidence presented did not prove that the successive injuries to the plaintiff's knee were "indivisible", the defendant failed to establish relevance. Further, the motions judge, having found the information to be relevant, failed to address whether the settlement information was privileged and whether any of the exceptions to privilege, such as avoiding double recovery, applied. The court stated that "the double recovery rule is a widely acknowledged exception permitting disclosure of documents otherwise protected by settlement privilege. It could form the basis of a disclosure order in this case should the trial judge ultimately determine that the communications sought here were relevant and necessary to avoid double recovery in this case".

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared for purpose of settlement - [See all Practice - Topic 4590 ].

Practice - Topic 4590

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Settlement documents and other agreements - The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality in negligence for a 2002 knee injury suffered in a fall - In 2004, the plaintiff further injured the same knee when struck by a vehicle - That negligence action was settled - A motions judge ordered that the plaintiff disclose all information respecting the settlement in the second action to the defendant on the ground that it was relevant - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal - The limited medical evidence presented did not establish that the plaintiff's successive injuries to the same knee were "indivisible" - Accordingly, relevance was not established - Further, had relevance been established, the motions judge erred in failing to then determine whether the settlement information was privileged and, if so, whether any exception to that privilege (such as avoiding double recovery) applied - The court opined that, if relevance were established at trial, all information respecting the negotiations and the settlement agreement itself, were prima facie privileged - The trial judge would then have to determine whether disclosure of the information was necessary to avoid double recovery.

Practice - Topic 4590

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Settlement documents and other agreements - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "it is generally accepted that there are three conditions that must be met to attract settlement privilege: (1) A litigious dispute must be in existence or in contemplation; (2) The communication must be made with the express or implied intention that it would not be disclosed to the court in the event that negotiations failed; (3) The purpose of communication must be to attempt to effect a settlement." - See paragraph 30.

Practice - Topic 4590

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Settlement documents and other agreements - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal discussed the development of the law respecting privileged settlement negotiations, including the purpose of that privilege and recognized exceptions to the privilege.

Practice - Topic 9867

Settlements - Disclosure - [See first Practice - Topic 4590 ].

Cases Noticed:

Smith v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (2004), 226 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 714 A.P.R. 344; 2004 NSCA 106, refd to. [para. 3].

A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc. et al. (2010), 294 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 933 A.P.R. 203; 2010 NSCA 70, refd to. [para. 3].

Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guana Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Saturley v. CIBC World Markets Inc. (2011), 297 N.S.R.(2d) 371; 943 A.P.R. 371; 2011 NSSC 4, refd to. [para. 9].

Upham v. You (1986), 73 N.S.R.(2d) 73; 176 A.P.R. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Toronto Board of Education Staff Credit Union Ltd. v. Skinner (1984), 46 C.P.C. 292 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Murphy v. Lawton's Drug Stores Ltd. (2010), 295 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 935 A.P.R. 1; 2010 NSSC 289, refd to. [para. 12].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 15].

E.D.G. v. Hammer et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 459; 310 N.R. 1; 187 B.C.A.C. 193; 307 W.A.C. 193; 2003 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 16].

Dingle v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [1961] 2 Q.B. 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ashcroft v. Dhaliwal et al. (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 160; 436 W.A.C. 160; 2008 BCCA 352, leave to appeal denied (2009), 395 N.R. 387; 282 B.C.A.C. 319; 476 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 18].

Laudon v. Roberts et al. (2009), 249 O.A.C. 72; 2009 ONCA 383, refd to. [para. 18].

Bradley v. Groves (2010), 291 B.C.A.C. 68; 492 W.A.C. 68; 2010 BCCA 361, refd to. [para. 18].

Hodgson v. Timmons (2006), 247 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 785 A.P.R. 353; 2006 NSSC 284, refd to. [para. 22].

McMullin v. East Port Properties Ltd. et al. (2006), 249 N.S.R.(2d) 396; 792 A.P.R. 396; 2006 NSSC 352, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

Kelvin Energy Ltd. v. Lee - see Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon & Co. v. Sparling et al.

Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon & Co. v. Sparling et al., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 235; 143 N.R. 191; 51 Q.A.C. 49, refd to. [para. 26].

Sparling v. Southam Inc. (1988), 66 O.R.(2d) 225 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hansraj v. Ao et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 262; 2002 ABQB 385, appeal allowed in part (2004), 354 A.R. 91; 329 W.A.C. 91; 2004 ABCA 223, refd to. [para. 31].

Waxman (I.) & Sons Ltd. v. Texaco Canada Ltd. et al., [1968] O.J. No. 1068, refd to. [para. 32].

Derco Industries Ltd. v. Grimwood (A.R.) Ltd. et al. (1985), 57 B.C.L.R. 395 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 33].

Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1988] 3 All E.R. 737; 104 N.R. 392 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 34].

Cutts v. Head, [1984] 1 All E.R. 597 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Middelkamp et al. v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board et al. (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 134; 29 W.A.C. 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Unilever v. Procter & Gamble, [2001] 1 All E.R. 783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Inter-Leasing Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Finance) et al. (2009), 256 O.A.C. 83 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. v. Wright et al. (1997), 120 Man.R.(2d) 214 (Q.B.), affd. (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 133; 187 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. v. Propak Systems Ltd. et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 185; 248 W.A.C. 185; 2001 ABCA 110, refd to. [para. 41].

British Columbia Children's Hospital et al. v. Air Products Canada Ltd. et al. (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 129; 297 W.A.C. 129; 2003 BCCA 177, refd to. [para. 41].

Begg v. East Hants (Municipal District) and Nova Scotia (Director of Assessment) (1986), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 431; 186 A.P.R. 431 (C.A.), dist. [para. 42].

Berta v. Armstrong et al. (2007), 262 N.S.R.(2d) 44; 839 A.P.R. 44; 2007 NSSC 373, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. National Post et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 477; 401 N.R. 104; 262 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 50].

Liquor Control Board (Ont.) v. Magnotta Winery Corp. et al. (2009), 97 O.R.(3d) 665 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2010), 270 O.A.C. 55; 2010 ONCA 681, disagreed with [paras. 52, 53].

Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 53].

Slavutych v. Baker et al. - see Slavutych v. University of Alberta.

Heritage Duty Free Shop Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 210 B.C.A.C. 264; 348 W.A.C. 264; 2005 BCCA 188, refd to. [para. 54].

Dos Santos Estate v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (2005), 207 B.C.A.C. 54; 341 W.A.C. 54; 2005 BCCA 4, refd to. [para. 54].

Gay v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 175; 692 A.P.R. 175; 2003 NSSC 228, refd to. [para. 54].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 55].

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. 55].

General Accident Assurance Co. et al. v. Chrusz et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 45 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Inglis v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 259 N.S.R.(2d) 360; 828 A.P.R. 360; 2007 NSSC 314, refd to. [para. 62].

Pettey et al. v. Avis Car Inc. et al. (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 725 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 66].

Conrad v. Snair et al. (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 407 A.P.R. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Sable Offshore Energy Inc. et al. v. Ameron International Corp. et al. (2010), 287 N.S.R.(2d) 113; 912 A.P.R. 113; 2010 NSSC 19, revd. (2010), 297 N.S.R.(2d) 300; 943 A.P.R. 300; 2010 NSCA 107, refd to. [para. 66].

Sable Offshore Energy Inc. et al. v. Ameron International Corp. et al. (2010), 299 N.S.R.(2d) 216; 947 A.P.R. 216; 2010 NSSC 473, refd to. [para. 66].

Noonan et al. v. Alpha-Vico et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 2720; 2010 ONSC 2720, refd to. [para. 67].

Pikus-Pace et al. v. Calgary Olympic Development Association et al. (2008), 462 A.R. 144; 2008 ABQB 688, refd to. [para. 67].

Par-Pak Ltd. v. Morguard Investments Ltd., [2010] O.J. No. 4488, refd to. [para. 67].

Meyers v. Dunphy (2007), 262 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 173; 794 A.P.R. 173; 2007 NLCA 1, refd to. [para. 68].

Berry v. Cypost Corp. et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1827; 2003 BCSC 1827, refd to. [para. 69].

Milicevic v. Jakubec (2005), 385 A.R. 148; 2005 ABQB 654, refd to. [para. 73].

Pangburn v. Leeder-Kroyer, [2003] O.T.C. 1048; 2003 CarswellOnt 4789 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

Chappel v. Dysko, [2008] O.T.C. Uned. 11; 2008 CarswellOnt 13 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), p. 1033 [para. 54]; paras. 14.316 [para. 25]; 14.322 [para. 30]; 14.341 [para. 41].

Cudmore, Gordon D., Civil Evidence Handbook (1994 Looseleaf Ed.), c. 6, p. 6-30.14(2) [para. 54].

Hubbard, Robert W., Magotiaux, Susan, and Duncan, Suzanne M., The Law of Privilege in Canada, paras. 12.280.30 to 12.280.35 [para. 41]; 12.280.40 [para. 28].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 248 to 254 [para. 54].

Vaver, D., Without Prejudice Communications - Their Admissibility and Effect (1974), 9 U.B.C.L. Rev. 85, generally [para. 24].

Counsel:

Michael Dull and Scott McGirr (articled clerk), for the appellant;

Joseph R. Wall, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 8, 2011, at Halifax, N.S., before Saunders, Beveridge and Bryson, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On April 1, 2011, Bryson, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.