Brown et al. v. Clark Wilson LLP et al., (2014) 356 B.C.A.C. 80 (CA)

• Judge: Newbury, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 24, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2014), 356 B.C.A.C. 80 (CA);2014 BCCA 185

Brown v. Clark Wilson LLP (2014), 356 B.C.A.C. 80 (CA);

    610 W.A.C. 80

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.027

Jonathan Brown, Harpreet Chima, Lee Robson, Greg Van Wijk and those persons listed as the Plaintiff Investors on Schedule "A" and "B" attached to the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim (The "HFX Group") (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Clark Wilson LLP, a law firm, and Gem Ali, also known as Cem Ali (appellants/defendants)

(CA041258)

Jonathan Brown, Harpreet Chima, Lee Robson, Greg Van Wijk and those persons listed as the Plaintiff Investors on Schedule "A" and "B" attached to the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Cem Ali (appellant/defendant) and Clark Wilson LLP (respondent/defendant)

(CA041267; 2014 BCCA 185)

Indexed As: Brown et al. v. Clark Wilson LLP et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Newbury, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A.

May 16, 2014.

Summary:

The defendants, Mr. Gem Ali ("Ali") and Clark Wilson LLP, a Vancouver law firm, applied for an order enjoining Mr. Ritchie Clark, Q.C. ("Clark"), from acting on behalf of the plaintiffs in this proceeding. The application raised not only what was referred to as a "MacDonald Estate matter" (MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990 S.C.C.)) in an unusual set of circumstances, but also the question of whether Ali had impliedly waived solicitor-client confidentiality in any event by voluntarily putting his knowledge or "state of mind" at issue in the underlying proceeding and by acting in a manner inconsistent with the maintenance of privilege.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1695, ruled against the defendants on both issues and dismissed the application. The defendants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, on the basis that Ali had impliedly waived privilege respecting what had passed between him and his solicitor, then an associate at Clark Wilson. Therefore, it was not necessary to determine the adequacy of the measures taken by Clark's (former) firm to prevent a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof once Clark had been retained.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 788

Duty to court - Disqualification of counsel - Standing - See paragraph 22.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1625

Relationship with client - Duty of confidentiality - Waiver by client - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 1].

S. & K. Processors Ltd. v. Campbell Ave. Herring Producers Ltd. (1983), 45 B.C.L.R. 218 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Salico Property Marketing Corp. et al. v. Farris Vaughan Wills & Murphy, [2005] B.C.T.C. 116; 2005 BCSC 116, refd to. [para. 20].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 23].

Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 32; 350 N.R. 154; 214 O.A.C. 377; 2006 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 24].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 24].

Western Canada Investment Co. v. McDiarmid, [1922] 1 W.W.R. 257 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Rogers et al. v. Bank of Montreal (1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

United States v. Exxon Corp. (1981), 94 F.R.D. 246 (Col. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Shirose - see R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.).

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, refd to. [para. 29].

Doman Forest Products Ltd. et al. v. GMAC Commercial Credit Corp. - Canada (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 208; 333 W.A.C. 208; 2004 BCCA 512, refd to. [para. 30].

Hearn v. Rhay (1975), 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash.), refd to. [para. 30].

National Bank Financial Ltd. v. Potter et al. (2007), 251 N.S.R.(2d) 124; 802 A.P.R. 124; 2007 NSSC 22, refd to. [para. 30].

Soleil Hotel & Suites Ltd. v. Soleil Management Inc. et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. F30; 2007 BCSC 1420, refd to. [para. 30].

Western Assurance Co. v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (1987), 63 O.R.(2d) 276 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Souter v. 375561 B.C. Ltd. (1996), 66 B.C.A.C. 19; 108 W.A.C. 19; 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

McDonnell v. Langret Investments, S.A. - see Langret Investments, S.A. v. McDonnell et al.

Langret Investments, S.A. v. McDonnell et al. (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 46; 172 W.A.C. 46; 1998 CanLII 6486 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

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), para. 971 [para. 24].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), para. 101 [para. 15].

Stewart, Hamish, Halsbury's Laws of Canada: Evidence (1st Ed. 2010), para. HEV-178 [para. 26].

Counsel:

W.G. MacLeod and J. Currie, for the appellant, Clark Wilson LLP;

T. Hakemi, for the appellant, Cem Ali;

R.S. Watts, for the respondents Brown et al.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on March 24, 2014, by Newbury, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Newbury, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on May 16, 2014.