British Columbia Children's Hospital et al. v. Air Products Canada Ltd. et al., (2003) 180 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA)

• Judge: Ryan, Huddart and Hall, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 18, 2002
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);2003 BCCA 177

Children's Hospital v. Air Products (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);

    297 W.A.C. 129

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.069

British Columbia Children's Hospital, Boundary Hospital Society, Burnaby Hospital Society, Burns Lake and District Hospital Society, Campbell River & District General Hospital Society, Cariboo Memorial Hospital Society, Chilliwack General Hospital Society, The Cowichan District Hospital Association, Cranbrook Regional Hospital Society, The Creston Valley Hospital Association, Dawson Creek and District Hospital Society, Delta Centennial Hospital Society, Fort Nelson Hospital Society, Fort St. John and District Hospital Society, The Fraser Burrard Hospital Society (doing business as Eagle Ridge Hospital and Royal Columbian Hospital), The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada (doing business as Grace Hospital), G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital Society, Greater Victoria Hospital Society, Kimberley and District Hospital Society, Ladysmith and District Hospital Society, Langley Memorial Hospital, Matsqui-Sumas-Abbotsford General Hospital Society, Nanaimo Regional General Hospital Society, Nicola Valley Health Care Society, The North and West Vancouver Hospital Society (doing business as Lions' Gate Hospital), 100 Mile District Hospital Society, Peace Arch District Hospital Society, Penticton Hospital Society, Port Hardy Hospital Society, Powell River Hospital Society, The Prince George and District Hospital Society, Prince Rupert Regional Hospital Association, Revelstoke District Health Society (doing business as Queen Victoria Hospital), Richmond Hospital Society, Royal Inland Hospital, Saanich Peninsula Hospital Society, Shuswap Community Health Care Society (doing business as Shuswap Lake General Hospital), South Okanagan Hospital Society, Sparwood General Hospital Society, St. Paul's Hospital, St. Vincent's Health Care Society, Surrey Memorial Hospital Society, Terrace Regional Health Care Society (doing business as Mills Memorial Hospital), The Bishop of Victoria: A Corporation Sole (doing business as St. Joseph's General Hospital), The United Church of Canada (doing business as Wrinch Memorial Hospital), University Hospital Society, Vancouver General Hospital, West Coast General Hospital, The Windermere District Hospital Association (prior to August 15, 1991, Inveremere and District Hospital Association) (appellants by cross-appeal/plaintiffs/respondents) v. Liquid Carbonic Inc., Praxair Canada Inc., Kenneth M. Hibbert, Neil F. Weaver and Vernon Lorish (defendants/appellants) and Air Products Canada Ltd./Prodair Canada ltée, Canadian Liquid Air Ltd. - Air Liquide Canada ltée, Canadian Oxygen Limited La Compagnie Canadienne D'Oxygene Limitée, Union Carbide Canada Limited, Medigas Inc., Medigas Pacific Limited, Haida Welding Supplies Ltd., Diamond Welding Supplies Ltd., Norweld Oxygen Inc., Western Welding Supplies Ltd., B.C. Welding Supplies Ltd., Alfred Dyke, Robin A. Scott, Rene J. Mandeville, T. John Tindale, David S. Watson (defendants/respondents)

(CA028902; 2003 BCCA 177)

Indexed As: British Columbia Children's Hospital et al. v. Air Products Canada Ltd. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Ryan, Huddart and Hall, JJ.A.

March 19, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff hospitals purchased gas prod­ucts from the various defendants. In October 1991 a number of individuals and corpora­tions pleaded guilty to charges of conspir­acy to fix the prices of gas products in Canada, contrary to the Competition Act. In Septem­ber 1994 the plaintiffs sued these parties, claiming damages based on the common law tort of conspiracy and the statutory tort created by s. 36(1) of the Competition Act. In December 1998 the plaintiffs and certain of the defendants entered into settlement discussions, agreeing that they would remain confidential. These parties entered into a settlement agreement and the plaintiffs' action was discontinued against those defen­dants. In January 2000 these parties also entered into a settlement confidentiality agreement. The remaining defendants sought production of the entire settlement agree­ment, especially the settle­ment amount.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 1083, declined to order production of the entire settlement agreement, on the ground it was not relevant, but did order production of certain portions of the agreement: (1) any provision which might be construed as a release, covenant not to sue or reservation of rights; (2) any provision containing admis­sions made by the parties with respect to the issues raised by the pleadings, and (3) any provisions dealing with evidentiary arrange­ments. The remaining defendants appealed. The plaintiffs cross-appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Huddart, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal in part.

Editor's Note: see also a prior related case at [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 339.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - What docu­ments must be produced - Privileged documents - Docu­ments prepared for purpose of settle­ment - The British Col­umbia Court of Appeal held that all docu­mentation relating to negotiation and set­tlement in a multi-party litigation was privileged from pro­duction to a non-party to the settlement - All set­tlement docu­ments, whether negoti­ations or the settle­ment document itself, were sub­ject to a "blanket" privilege from produc­tion - See paragraphs 6 to 33.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - What docu­ments must be produced - Privileged documents - Docu­ments prepared for purpose of settle­ment - In a multi-party action for damages for conspiracy to fix gas prices, the plain­tiffs negotiated and entered into a settle­ment agreement with certain defendants - The remaining defen­dants sought disclos­ure of the entire settle­ment agreement, especially the settlement amount - The British Columbia­ Court of Appeal held that dis­closure of the settle­ment amount need not be produced, because its relevance was not established - See paragraphs 33 to 34.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - What docu­ments must be produced - Privileged documents - Docu­ments prepared for purpose of settle­ment - In a multi-party action for damages for conspiracy to fix gas prices, the plain­tiffs negotiated and entered into a settle­ment agreement with certain defendants - The remaining defen­dants sought disclos­ure of the entire settle­ment agreement, especially the settlement amount - The trial judge ordered disclos­ure only of (1) any­thing which was a release, covenant not to sue or reservation of rights; (2) anything con­taining admis­sions by the parties re­levant to the issues, and (3) anything deal­ing with evidentiary arrangements - The British Columbia Court of Appeal struck out the second and third parts of the order, but affirmed dis­closure of (1) - See para­graphs 35 to 38.

Practice - Topic 4590

Discovery - What docu­ments must be produced - Settlement documents and other agreements - [See all Practice - Topic 4580 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hansard Spruce Mills, Re, [1954] 13 W.W.R.(N.S.) 285 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Belitchev v. Grigorov et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 185 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. v. Wright, [1997] 10 W.W.R. 622; 120 Man.R.(2d) 214 (Q.B.), affd. (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 133; 187 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

Middelkamp et al. v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board et al. (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 134; 29 W.A.C. 134; 71 B.C.L.R.(2d) 276; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 227 (C.A.), folld. [para. 8].

Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Cat­erpillar Tractor Co. et al., [1990] 4 W.W.R. 39; 105 A.R. 4 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 8].

Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1988] 3 All E.R. 737 (H.L.), consd. [para. 11].

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. v. Propak Systems Ltd. et al., [2001] 6 W.W.R. 628; 281 A.R. 185; 248 W.A.C. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Waxman (I.) & Sons Ltd. v. Texaco Canada Ltd., [1968] 1 O.R. 642; 67 D.L.R.(2d) 295, consd. [para. 12].

Pirie v. Wyld (1886), 11 O.R. 422 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 14].

Walker v. Wilsher (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 335, consd. [para. 15].

Calderbank v. Calderbank, [1975] 3 All E.R. 333, refd to. [para. 17].

Tomlin v. Standard Telephone and Cables Ltd., [1969] 3 All E.R. 201 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Thibodeau v. Thibodeau (1984), 47 C.P.C. 224, refd to. [para. 19].

Rogers v. Bank of Montreal (1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

British Columbia Ferry Corp. v. T & N plc (1994), 90 B.C.L.R.(2d) 363 (S.C.), agreed with [para. 24].

Derco Industries Ltd. v. Grimwood (A.R.) Ltd., [1985] 2 W.W.R. 137; 57 B.C.L.R. 395 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 27].

Gnitrow Ltd. v. Cape plc, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2327 (Eng. C.A.), dist. [para. 30].

Vancouver Community College v. Phillips, Barratt (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 289 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Hook, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 659 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Shoker v. Vollans et al. (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 225; 178 W.A.C. 225; 56 B.C.L.R.(3d) 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 44].

Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. The Peruvian Guano Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55, refd to. [para. 45].

Warrick v. Queen's College, Oxford (No. 2) (1867), L.R. 4 Eq. 254, consd. [para. 54].

Sun Life Trust Co. v. Dewshi (1993), 99 D.L.R.(4th) 232 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 57].

Hill v. Gordon-Daly Grenadier Securities et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 40; 56 O.R.(3d) 388 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 59].

Pettey et al. v. Avis Car Inc. et al. (1993), 103 D.L.R.(4th) 298 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 59].

Proskow v. Schnell et al. (2000), 264 A.R. 175 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

Elbaor v. Smith (1992), 845 S.W. 2d 240 (S.C. Texas), refd to. [para. 62].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 211; [1991] 5 W.W.R. 389, refd to. [para. 66].

Duncan v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1971] 3 W.W.R. 311 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross and Tapper on Evidence (9th Ed.), p. 468 [para. 11].

Vaver, D., Without Prejudice Communica­tions - Their Admissibility and Effect (1974), 9 U.B.C. L. Rev. 85, p. 88 [para. 10].

Counsel:

J. Arvay, Q.C., and M.G. Underhill, for the appellants;

S. Wong and J.K. Wright, for the plain­tiffs/respondents;

G.B. Gomery, for the respondents, Air Products;

S.A. Turner, for the respondents, Canadian Oxygen.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 18, 2002, before Ryan, Huddart and Hall, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on March 19, 2003, and the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Hall, J.A. (Ryan, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 39;

Huddart, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 40 to 85.