Flynn v. Luscar Ltd., 2002 ABQB 799

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 23, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 799;(2002), 323 A.R. 241 (QB)

Flynn v. Luscar Ltd. (2002), 323 A.R. 241 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. SE.049

Colleen Flynn (plaintiff/respondent) v. Luscar Ltd. (defendant/appellant)

(Action No. 0003-16997; 2002 ABQB 799)

Indexed As: Flynn v. Luscar Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

September 9, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought an order that seven persons attend to be examined for discovery either as officers or employees of the defendant.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported [2002] A.R. Uned. 154, allowed the application respecting six of the employees. The defendant appealed the order respecting three employees.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 4236

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - When privilege may be invoked - The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought an order, inter alia, that Maydonik be examined for discovery either as an officer or employee of the defendant - Maydonik was in house counsel for the defendant and had direct contact with the plaintiff before she left her employment - The defendant argued that Maydonik's involvement was governed by solicitor-client privilege - A master allowed the application - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the defendant's appeal - Maydonik was presumably carrying the defendant's authority to converse with the plaintiff about her concerns, which pre-dated her departure from employment - Despite that inference, the facts did not support a claim of solicitor-client privilege respecting such contacts - See paragraphs 6 and 64 to 67.

Evidence - Topic 4245

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Offers of settlement or settlement negotiations - A plaintiff sought an order that several persons attend to be examined for discovery either as officers or employees of the defendant - Included in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit were extracts of "without prejudice" correspondence between the parties' counsel regarding the case - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it would be an error to consider the paragraphs of the defendant's affidavit that referred to the letter from the defendant's counsel, even for the limited purposes of a present motion - The letter's contents could not be stripped of the benefit of the "without prejudice" doctrine merely by editing out any specific compromise proposals - The dominant purpose of the letter as a whole was for settlement - The court inferred that the letter set out "approaches" and "strengths" and "weaknesses" - See paragraphs 1 to 5 and paragraphs 50 to 56.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared for purpose of settlement - [See Evidence - Topic 4245 ].

Cases Noticed:

BTK Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Edmonton Development Corp. (1992), 131 A.R. 387; 25 W.A.C. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 1].

Hansraj v. Ao et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 262 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 2].

Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City) (1997), 209 A.R. 1; 160 W.A.C. 1; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 453 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 3].

Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al., [1990] 4 W.W.R. 39; 105 A.R. 4 (Q.B.), affd. [1990] 5 W.W.R. 377; 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 4].

Olson v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (1998), 226 A.R. 258 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 5].

General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Sherwood (1992), 121 A.R. 133 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 135 A.R. 53; 33 W.A.C. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 7].

General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Isaac (1992), 136 A.R. 294 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 8].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 9].

Trout Lake Store Inc. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (2002), 307 A.R. 190 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 10].

Menduk v. Gore Mutual Insurance (1969), 67 W.W.R.(N.S.) 573 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 11].

Willman v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (1979), 17 A.R. 608; 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 110; 107 D.L.R.(3d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 12].

Wright v. Disposal Services Ltd. and Marsh (1977), 8 A.R. 394; 4 Alta. L.R.(2d) 173; 80 D.L.R.(3d) 671 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 13].

Alberta Wheat Pool v. Nahajowicz, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 483 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 14].

McLennan Ross v. Keen Industries Ltd. (No. 2) (1988), 86 A.R. 311; 59 Alta. L.R.(2d) 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 15].

274099 Alberta Ltd. v. West Edmonton Mall Shopping Centre Ltd. et al. (1990), 114 A.R. 57; 75 Alta. L.R.(2d) 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 16].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 17].

Wray v. Scwartz et al. (1981), 14 Alta. L.R.(2d) 346; 119 D.L.R.(3d) 489 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 18].

Leeds et al. v. Alberta (Minister of the Environment) et al. (1989), 98 A.R. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 19].

Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Canada Inc. et al. (2002), 326 A.R. 210 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 20].

Wenzel Oil Tool Co. v. Alberta (Treasury Branches) (1990), 107 A.R. 245; 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 24 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 21].

Berube et al. v. Wingrowich et al. (2000), 272 A.R. 229 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 22].

Matwychuk v. Western Union Insurance Co. (1992), 134 A.R. 230 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 23].

Global Petroleum Corp. et al. v. CBI Industries Inc. et al. (1998), 172 N.S.R.(2d) 326; 524 A.P.R. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 24].

Kenton Farm Corp. v. J and N Steel Builders Co. et al. (1990), 71 Man.R.(2d) 229 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 26].

Greenwood v. Fitts (1961), 29 D.L.R.(2d) 260 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 27].

Metropolitan Trust Co. of Canada v. 337807 Alberta Ltd., [1996] A.J. No. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 29].

Gainers Inc. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1993), 139 A.R. 284 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 30].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 745; 16 C.R.(3d) 294; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 495, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 31].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 32].

Slavutch v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224; 38 C.R.N.S. 306; 75 C.L.L.C. 14,263; [1975] 4 W.W.R. 620, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 33].

Slavutych - see Slavutch.

Slavutych v. Baker - see Slavutch v. University of Alberta.

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 40 C.R.(5th) 19, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 34].

R. v. Brown (J.D.) (2002), 285 N.R. 201; 157 O.A.C. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 341; 50 C.R.(5th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 35].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al., [2002] 7 W.W.R. 157; 311 A.R. 284 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 36].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2002), 307 A.R. 201; 50 C.R.(5th) 242 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 36].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2002), 300 A.R. 89; 97 Alta. L.R.(3d) 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 36].

Comrie v. Comrie (2001), 203 Sask.R. 164; 240 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 37].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada et al. (2001), 267 A.R. 338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 38].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. 416169 Alberta Inc. et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

C.E.D. - see Canadian Encyclopedic Digest.

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (3rd Ed.), vol. 12, pp. 738 to 742, §1067 to §1079 [para. 44, footnote 25].

Kerans, Roger P., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (1994), pp. 29 to 51, 146 to 149 [para. 34, footnote 6].

Counsel:

G. Brent Gawne (G. Brent Gawne and Associates), for the plaintiff/respondent;

Brian Thompson (Neuman Thompson), for the defendant/appellant.

This appeal was heard on August 23, 2002, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on September 9, 2002.