Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler ltée v. Société intermunicipale de gestion et d'élimination des déchets (SIGED) Inc., 2004 SCC 18

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 SCC 18;(2004), 318 N.R. 111 (SCC);[2004] CarswellQue 513;JE 2004-746;AZ-50227183;237 DLR (4th) 417;318 NR 111;[2004] SCJ No 18 (QL);[2004] 1 SCR 456

Foster Wheeler Power v. SIGED (2004), 318 N.R. 111 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. MR.061

Ville de Montréal (appelante) c. La Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler Ltée (intimée) et Barreau du Québec et Association du Barreau canadien (intervenants)

(28967; 2004 CSC 18; 2004 SCC 18)

Indexed As: Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler ltée v. Société intermunicipale de gestion et d'élimination des déchets (SIGED) Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Fish, JJ.

March 25, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued certain municipal author­ities as a result of the cancellation of a con­tract for the construction of a solid waste recycling centre and a municipal incinerator. The plaintiff alleged a breach of the defend­ants' obligation to co-operate in good faith and of having deliberately scuttled the pro­ject. Examinations on discovery after defence took place. The plaintiff's lawyers and law­yers representing some interveners wanted to ask witnesses questions about information re­lated to certain aspects of the project that was obtained from lawyers representing the mu­nicipal authorities in the matter of the pro­ject. The defendant municipality (as suc­cessor to the municipal authorities orig­inally sued) objected on the basis of pro­fessional secrecy.

The Quebec Superior Court (no. 500-05-020674-964) allowed a certain number of ques­tions. The defendant appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2001] R.J.Q. 2461, dismissed the appeal. The defendant appealed. The debate was circumscribed to five reworked ques­tions out of the 43 questions originally cov­ered by the defendant's objections.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1621

Relationship with client - Duty of confi­dentiality (or professional secrecy) - Gen­eral - When obligation of confidentiality engaged - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 9765 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1625

Relationship with client - Duty of confi­dentiality (or professional secrecy) - Waiver by client - [See Quebec Pro­ce­dure - Topic 9765 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9761

Evidence - Testimonial evidence - Objec­tions - Professional secrecy - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the legal framework of professional se­crecy in Quebec legislation - The court stated that professional secrecy included an obligation of confidentiality, which, in areas where it applied, imposed a duty of discretion on lawyers and created a cor­relative right to their silence on the part of their clients - In relation to third parties, professional secrecy included an immunity from disclosure that protected the content of information against compelled disclos­ure, even in judicial proceedings, subject to any other applicable legal rules or prin­ciples - See paragraphs 18 to 29.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9762

Evidence - Testimonial evidence - Objec­tions - Professional secrecy - Burden of proof - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in the case of an individual pro­fessional act, the person claiming pro­fes­sional secrecy would without doubt need only simple or summary evidence to show the confidentiality of the information sought and his right to immunity from dis­closure - The burden of proof could thus be placed on the professional without com­promising the exercise and integrity of the institution - In the case of complicated and prolonged mandates, it would be enough to have the party invoking pro­fessional se­crecy establish that a general mandate was given to a lawyer for the purpose of ob­taining a range of services generally ex­pected of a lawyer in his or her profes­sional capacity - At this stage, there would be a presumption of fact, albeit a rebut­table one, to the effect that all com­munica­tions between client and lawyer and the in­formation they shared would be con­sidered prima facie confidential in nature - See paragraphs 39 to 42.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9765

Evidence - Testimonial evidence - Objec­tions - Professional secrecy - Nondis­clo­sure of confidential information - When applicable - At an examination on dis­cov­ery after defence, the plaintiff's lawyers and others wanted to ask witnesses ques­tions about information that the defen­dant municipal authorities obtained from law­yers representing them in the matter of a now cancelled contract for the construc­tion of a solid waste recycling centre and a municipal incinerator - Objections to 43 questions were made on the basis of pro­fessional secrecy - After rulings by the lower courts, five reworked questions re­mained for adjudication by the Supreme Court of Canada - A first set of questions was about whether the lawyers had, at an authority meeting chaired by an indepen­dent professional facilitator, clearly ex­plained the nature of the project and talked about the status of dealings relating to the project's approval - These questions also asked the witnesses to describe the nature of the information they received regarding these aspects of the case - A second set of questions required the pro­duction of docu­ments that neither the Supreme Court of Can­ada nor the Quebec Superior Court had the opportunity to examine - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the first set of questions where the information sought did not engage an obligation of confidentiality - With respect to the second set, the court affirmed a ruling that the Superior Court examine the documents sought before rul­ing on whether immunity from judicial dis­clo­sure should be accorded - The court al­so ruled that the presence of the indepen­dent chairperson did not result in a waiver of professional secrecy.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9770

Evidence - Testimonial evidence - Objec­tions - Professional secrecy - Waiver - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 9765 ].

Cases Noticed:

Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Feigleman (1912), 22 B.R. 102, refd to. [para. 25].

Maranda v. Leblanc (2003), 311 N.R. 357; 2003 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Robillard, [2001] R.J.Q. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 164 O.A.C. 280; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Gruenke - see R. v. Fosty and Gruenke.

Frenette v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. - see Métropolitaine (La), compagnie d'assurance-vie v. Frenette, Hôpital Jean-Talon et un autre.

Métropolitaine (La), compagnie d'as­sur­ance-vie v. Frenette, Hôpital Jean-Talon et un autre, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 647; 134 N.R. 169; 46 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Shirose (S.) - see R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.).

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, consd. [para. 36].

Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) v. Legault, [1989] R.J.Q. 229; 22 Q.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 37].

Poulin v. Prat, [1994] R.D.J. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Quebec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) v. Fava, [1984] C.A. 339, refd to. [para. 44].

Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James, [1991] R.J.Q. 637; 37 Q.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Champagne v. Scotia McLeod Inc., [1992] R.D.J. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Lab Chrysotile Inc. v. Société Asbestos Ltée, [1993] R.D.J. 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Pfieffer et Pfieffer Inc. c. Javicoli et autres, [1994] R.J.Q. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Barreau du Québec, Act respecting the, R.S.Q. 1977, c. B-1, sect. 131 [para. 21].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 9 [para. 19].

Civil Code of Québec, L.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2858 [para. 22].

Professional Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-26, sect. 60.4 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Secret professionnel et droit au secret dans le droit de la preuve (1965), pp. 8 [para. 24]; 9 [paras. 24, 26].

Brierley, J.E.C., and Macdonald, R.A., Quebec Civil Law: An Introduction to Quebec Private Law (1993), pp. 687 to 689 [para. 24].

Cardinal, A., Quelques aspects modernes du secret professionnel de l'avocat (1984), 44 R. du B. 237, pp. 246, 266 [para. 25].

Morissette, Yves-Marie and Shuman, Daniel W., Le secret professionnel au Québec: une hydre à trente-neuf têtes rôde dans le droit de la preuve (1984), 25 C. de D. 501, p. 505 [para. 20].

Royer, J.-C., La preuve civile (3rd Ed. 2003), pp. 868 [para. 44]; 868 to 872 [para. 15]; 891, 892 [para. 34]; 907 to 909 [para. 27]; 977 [para. 35].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 745, 746 [para. 15].

Walton, F.P., Le domaine et l'interpréta­tion du Code civil du Bas-Canada/The Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower Canada (198­0), p. 47 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Réal Forest, Claude Marseille and Enrico Forlini, for the appellant, Ville de Mont­réal;

Olivier F. Kott, Bernard P. Quinn and Mercedes Glockseisen, for the respon­dent, Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler Ltée;

Giuseppe Battista, for the intervener Bar­reau du Québec;

Denis Jacques, for the intervener, Associ­ation du Barreau canadien.

Solicitors of Record:

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant, Ville de Mont­réal;

Ogilvy Renault, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent, Société d'énergie Foster Wheeler Ltée;

Shadley Battista, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, Barreau du Québec.

Grondin Poudrier Bernier, Québec, Que­bec, for the intervener Association du Barreau canadien.

This appeal was heard on November 12, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on March 25, 2004, by LeBel, J.