Can. Post v. Cormier Plumbing,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Turnbull and Bell, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 NBCA 54
• Citation: 2008 NBCA 54,(2008), 334 N.B.R.(2d) 211 (CA),334 NBR (2d) 211,296 DLR (4th) 738,[2008] NBJ No 300 (QL),[2008] N.B.J. No 300 (QL),(2008), 334 NBR(2d) 211 (CA),296 D.L.R. (4th) 738,334 N.B.R.(2d) 211,334 NBR(2d) 211
• Date: 19 February 2008
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

Can. Post v. Cormier Plumbing (2008), 334 N.B.R.(2d) 211 (CA);

    334 R.N.-B.(2e) 211; 858 A.P.R. 211

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.007

Renvoi temp.: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.007

Euclide Cormier Plumbing and Heating Inc. and Economical Mutual Insurance Company, Added Pursuant to Section 104.1 of the Insurance Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, C. I-12 as Amended (appellants) v. Canada Post Corporation and Irving Oil Company, Limited and Irving Oil Limited (respondents)

(148/07/CA; 2008 NBCA 54)

Indexed As: Canada Post Corp. v. Cormier (Euclide) Plumbing and Heating Inc. et al.

Répertorié: Canada Post Corp. v. Cormier (Euclide) Plumbing and Heating Inc. et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Turnbull and Bell, JJ.A.

July 24, 2008.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff commenced two actions respecting a furnace oil spill on their property. A fourth party in one action (Economical) alleged that certain documents and information covered by solicitor-client privilege (documents attached to an adjuster's report) were inadvertently given to counsel for the other parties. Economical sought an order removing the plaintiff's counsel as solicitors of record in the actions, an order that the plaintiff's counsel be ordered to destroy all documents, letters, records and/or notes made respecting the privileged documents, an order prohibiting the plaintiff and any subsequent legal counsel from making any use whatsoever of the said documents and/or their contents in the within matter, and an order that the motion file, requesting the removal of the plaintiff's counsel, be sealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 326 N.B.R.(2d) 46; 838 A.P.R. 46, declined to remove the plaintiff's counsel, ordered the destruction of the privileged documents, etc., prohibited the plaintiff and its counsel from using the documents, and sealed the motion file until further order of the court or until final determination of the matter (whichever occurred first). Economical appealed. The Irving Oil companies (fourth parties and defendants in the two actions) cross-appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 787

Duty to court - Disqualification of counsel - When available (incl. grounds) - The plaintiff commenced two actions respecting a furnace oil spill on their property - A fourth party in one action (Economical) alleged that certain documents and information covered by solicitor-client privilege (documents attached to an adjuster's report) were inadvertently given to counsel for the other parties (listed under Schedule "A" of an affidavit of documents) - The plaintiff's counsel extensively reviewed the documents, made detailed notes, and disclosed the contents to the plaintiff, but eventually destroyed the documents after several requests by Economical's counsel - Economical sought an order removing the plaintiff's counsel as solicitors of record in the actions - The actions were "close" to being entered for trial - The motion judge declined to remove the plaintiff's counsel - The parties might have discovered the information contained in the documents on their own in any event - Documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege, but the facts were not - The court ordered the destruction of any copies of the privileged documents and any notes, reviews, or correspondence which referenced what was contained in the privileged documents - The documents could not be used in any way but nothing precluded the parties from establishing the facts which underpinned the privileged documents - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed Economical's appeal and a cross-appeal - The inadvertent production of the documents probably operated to do no more than acquaint the plaintiff and its counsel with information they would have acquired, sooner or later, as the litigation unfolded - The law would be in a "sad state" if accelerated acquaintance with non-privileged information, in the circumstances here, sufficed to bring about the principled removal of a solicitor of record - The removal of the plaintiff's counsel would be unfair.

Practice - Topic 4252

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Questions related to or relevant and material to issues between the parties - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that "[o]ur Rules of Court allow broad informational discovery. Thus, under Rule 32.06(1), a person being examined for discovery may not limit his or her answers to matters within personal knowledge. Rather, that person must answer to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief any question relating to an issue in the action. Moreover, Rule 32.06(1)(a) provides that a question may not be objected to on the ground that the information sought is evidence. Those testimonial obligations require the disclosure of any factual information communicated in privileged witness statements or reports" - See paragraph 49.

Practice - Topic 4261

Discovery - Examination - Range of - Privileged topics or communications - [See Practice - Topic 4252 ].

Avocats et notaires - Cote 787

Devoirs judiciaires - Déclaration d'inhabilité d'un avocat - Conditions d'ouverture (y compris motifs) - [Voir Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 787 ].

Procédure - Cote 4252

Enquête préalable - Interrogatoire - Portée - Questions reliées aux points en litige entre les parties - [Voir Practice - Topic 4252 ].

Procédure - Cote 4261

Enquête préalable - Interrogatoire - Portée - Sujets ou communications privilégiés - [Voir Practice - Topic 4261 ].

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. 32].

Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 189; 352 N.R. 1; 215 O.A.C. 266; 2006 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 32].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, addendum 147 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 42].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Western Surety Co. v. National Bank of Canada (1997), 186 N.B.R.(2d) 36; 476 A.P.R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. v. Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. (2002), 251 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 654 A.P.R. 102; 2002 NBCA 41, refd to. [para. 43].

Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v. Beaverbrook Art Gallery (2006), 302 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 784 A.P.R. 161; 2006 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 45].

Turnbull-Burnight v. CIBC World Markets Inc. et al. (2007), 318 N.B.R.(2d) 326; 821 A.P.R. 326; 2007 NBCA 43, refd to. [para. 45].

Doucet et al. v. v. Spielo Manufacturing Inc. et al. (2007), 327 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 840 A.P.R. 1; 2007 NBCA 85, refd to. [para. 45].

Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27; [1969] C.T.C. 353; 69 D.T.C. 5278, refd to. [para. 49].

Ceci et al. v. Bonk (1992), 56 O.A.C. 346; 7 O.R.(3d) 381 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Landolfi v. Fargione (2006), 209 O.A.C. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

DuPont Canada Inc. v. Emballage St-Jean ltée (2000), 266 N.R. 366; 102 A.C.W.S.(3d) 299 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Daley (D.) et al., [2004] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 128; 2004 NBQB 367, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales et al., [2006] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 199; 2007 NBQB 81, refd to. [para. 49].

Forest Protection Ltd. v. Bayer A.G. et al. (1998), 206 N.B.R.(2d) 26; 526 A.P.R. 26 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

Sacrey v. Berdan (1986), 38 A.C.W.S.(2d) 295 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Murray v. Woodstock General Hospital Trust et al. (1988), 31 O.A.C. 153; 66 O.R.(2d) 129 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Devji et al. v. Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc. (1999), 96 O.T.C. 319; 45 O.R.(3d) 82 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Walker v. Woodstock District Chamber of Commerce et al. (2001), 142 O.A.C. 53 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Reilly v. Paul (2006), 305 N.B.R.(2d) 146; 791 A.P.R. 146; 2006 NBCA 84, refd to. [para. 54].

Fougère et al. v. Clements et al. (2007), 311 N.B.R.(2d) 368; 803 A.P.R. 368; 2007 NBCA 4, refd to. [para. 54].

J.A.M. v. D.L.M. (2008), 326 N.B.R.(2d) 111; 838 A.P.R. 111; 2008 NBCA 2, refd to. [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, pp. 27, 28, 51 [para. 42].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Danys R.X. Delaquis, for the appellants;

Edwin G. Ehrhardt, Q.C., for the respondent, Canada Post Corporation;

J. Paul M. Harquail, for the respondents, Irving Oil Company, Limited and Irving Oil Limited.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on February 19, 2008, before Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Turnbull and Bell, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Drapeau, C.J.N.B., delivered the following judgment on July 24, 2008, in both official languages.