Cross v. Assuras et al., (1996) 113 Man.R.(2d) 28 (CA)

• Judge: Lyon, Helper and Monnin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1996), 113 Man.R.(2d) 28 (CA)

Cross v. Assuras (1996), 113 Man.R.(2d) 28 (CA);

    131 W.A.C. 28

MLB headnote and full text

Patricia Cross (plaintiff/appellant) v. Health Sciences Centre (defendant/respondent) and George Assuras, David Hedden, Rabindranath Persad, Tsiporah Shore, Marilyn Bruce and Cook (Canada) Inc. (defendants)

(Suit No. AI 96-30-02667)

Indexed As: Cross v. Assuras et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Lyon, Helper and Monnin, JJ.A.

August 19, 1996.

Summary:

A Health Sciences Centre patient, receiving chemotherapy treatment by catheter, suffered injuries when the catheter leaked. At the insurance adjuster's suggestion, the catheter was sent for inspection. The patient sued several doctors and the Health Sciences Centre. The patient sought production of the report relating to the inspection and testing of the catheter.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 104 Man.R.(2d) 263, dismissed the motion. The patient appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 109 Man.R.(2d) 6, dis­missed the appeal. The patient appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered production.

Practice - Topic 4576

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Doctor and hospital records - A Health Sciences Centre (HSC) patient, receiving chemo­therapy treatment by catheter, suffered injuries when the catheter leaked - The insurance adjuster suggested that the cath­eter be sent for inspection - The patient sued several doctors and the Health Sciences Centre - The patient sought production of the report relating to the inspection and testing of the catheter - The Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered production of the report, where HSC failed to establish that the dominant purpose for ordering the report was in contemplation of litigation.

Practice - Topic 4578

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Docu­ments prepared in contemplation of litiga­tion - [See Practice - Topic 4576 ].

Cases Noticed:

Levin v. Boyce (1985), 34 Man.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Nova, An Alberta Corp. v. Guelph Engineering Co. et al. and Daniel Valve Co. et al., [1984] 3 W.W.R. 314; 50 A.R. 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Shaughnessy Golf & Country Club v. Uniguard Services Ltd. (1986), 26 D.L.R.(4th) 298 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Shaughnessy Golf & Country Club v. Drake International Inc. - see Shaughnessy Golf & Country Club v. Uniguard Services Ltd.

Waugh v. British Railways Board, [1980] A.C. 521 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

Chmara v. Nguyen (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 227; 41 W.A.C. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Butterfield v. Dickson (1994), 28 C.P.C.(3d) 242 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881), 17 Ch. D. 675, refd to. [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Craig, and Menezes, Julio, Insurance Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 44 to 46, 256 [para. 21].

Counsel:

C.G. Wright, for the appellant;

K.L. Dixon, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 4, 1996, before Lyon, Helper and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On August 19, 1996, Helper, J.A., delivered the follow­ing judgment for the court.