Carey v. Ontario et al., (1986) 72 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 18, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 72 N.R. 81 (SCC)

Carey v. Ont. (1986), 72 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

H. Rod Carey v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, The Ontario Development Corporation, The Northern Ontario Development Corporation, Claude Bennett and Allan Grossman

(18060)

Indexed As: Carey v. Ontario et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

December 18, 1986.

Summary:

Ontario, including the provincial government, the Ontario Development Corporation and the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, assisted the plaintiff's struggling resort hotel in Northwestern Ontario and then took it over, allegedly unconscionably. The plaintiff brought an action against Ontario for damages. On discovery Ontario's witnesses claimed an absolute privilege respecting documents of cabinet and its committees. The Ontario High Court in a judgment reported 38 O.R.(2d) 430; 28 C.P.C. 310, quashed the plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum and ruled that the cabinet documents were privileged from production. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court in a judgment reported 39 O.R.(2d) 273; 31 C.P.C. 34; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 684; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 83, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 43 O.R.(2d) 161; 38 C.P.C. 237; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 498; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 193, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered that the cabinet documents be produced for inspection by the trial judge to determine whether they should be produced by balancing the competing interest of preventing harm to the public service and the public interest in the administration of justice.

Courts - Topic 102

Stare decisis - English and American decisions - American decisions - The Supreme Court of Canada considered American cases in determining that documents of a provincial cabinet could be ordered to be produced - See paragraphs 51, 106.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets, state or public documents - Cabinet documents - A plaintiff brought an action against Ontario for damages resulting from commercial dealings in which Ontario allegedly acted unconscionably - On discovery Ontario's witnesses claimed an absolute privilege respecting documents of cabinet and its committees - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the cabinet documents should be produced for inspection by the trial judge to determine whether they should be produced by balancing the competing interest of preventing harm to the public service and the public interest in the administration of justice - See paragraphs 86-109 - The court held that the period of protection for such documents (relating to low-level government policy and a transaction 13 years old) was relatively short - See paragraph 83 - The allegation of unconscionable government conduct was also a factor, because such behaviour should be revealed, not hidden - See paragraphs 84-85.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets, state or public documents - Cabinet documents - The Supreme Court of Canada in ruling that cabinet documents could be ordered to be produced in civil litigation discussed the rationale for non-disclosure of cabinet documents, rejecting the promotion of candor rationale and adopting the avoidance of political repercussions rationale as valid (see paragraphs 43-50), and the decline of absolute protection (see paragraphs 51-78) - The court noted that the public interest in non-disclosure is not a Crown privilege, but rather a public interest immunity (see paragraph 38) - The court held that such documents should be produced, not only if they help the plaintiff or hurt the defendant, but if they might assist any party, i.e. if they will help to thoroughly determine the issues and save costs - See paragraphs 94, 105.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets, state or public documents - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the court and not the government must determine whether official documents should be produced - See paragraphs 22 to 39.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets, state or public documents - Affidavit in support of claim for privilege - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an affidavit in support of a claim to public interest immunity should be as helpful as possible in identifying the interest sought to be protected - See paragraphs 40 to 42.

Cases Noticed:

Smerchanski v. Lewis (1981), 31 O.R.(2d) 705, consd. [paras. 14, 75].

Robinson v. State of South Australia (No. 2), [1931] A.C. 704 (P.C.), consd. [paras. 24, 26].

Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] A.C. 910, consd. [paras. 25, 35].

Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co., [1942] A.C. 624, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Snider, [1954] S.C.R. 479, consd. [para. 33].

Gagnon v. Commission des valeurs mobiliéres du Québec, [1965] S.C.R. 73, consd. [paras. 34, 75].

Re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No. 2), [1964] 3 All E.R. 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Glasgow Corporation v. Central Land Board, [1956] S.C. (H.L.) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Javelin Limited, Re; Sparling v. Smallwood, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 686; 44 N.R. 571, consd. [paras. 39, 76, 83, 89, 101].

Burmah Oil Co. v. Bank of England, [1979] 3 All E.R. 700 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 40, 67, 88, 89, 96, 101].

Goguen v. Gibson, [1983] 2 F.C. 463; 50 N.R. 286; 40 C.P.C. 295 (F.C.A.), consd. [paras. 40, 81, 106].

Rogers v. Home Secretary, [1973] A.C. 388 (H.L.), consd. [para. 48].

United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U. S. 683, consd. [paras. 51, 83].

Attorney-General v. Jonathon Cape Ltd., [1975] 3 All E.R. 484, consd. [para. 57].

Lanyon Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1974), 129 C.L.R. 650, consd. [para. 60].

Sankey v. Whitlam (1978), 21 A.L.R. 505 (H.C.), consd. [paras. 61, 83, 84].

Environmental Defence Society Inc. v. South Pacific Aluminium Ltd., [1981] 1 N.Z.L.R. 146, consd. [para. 74].

R. v. Vanguard Hutterian Brethren Inc. (1979), 97 D.L.R.(3d) 86 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 75].

Mannix v. Alberta, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 343; 31 A.R. 169 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 75].

Gloucester Properties Ltd. v. R. (1981), 24 C.P.C. 82, consd. [para. 75].

Air Canada v. Secretary of State for Trade, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 494 (H.L.), consd. [para. 90].

Fletcher Timber Ltd. v. Attorney-General, [1984] 1 N.Z.L.R. 290 (C.A.), folld. [para. 107].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Williston and Rolls, The Law of Civil Procedure (1970), vol. 2, pp. 745-751, 780-781, 805-806 [para. 106].

Counsel:

J.L. McDougall, Q.C., and R.L. Armstrong, for the appellant;

T.H. Wickett, Q.C., for the respondent.

This case was heard on October 2, 1985, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 18, 1986, La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: