French v. Fish et al., (1995) 175 A.R. 81 (QB)

• Judge: Moore, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 22, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 175 A.R. 81 (QB)

French v. Fish (1995), 175 A.R. 81 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Lynn French (plaintiff) v. Dr. Edward J.L. Fish and E.J. Laurence Fish Professional Corporation (defendants)

(Action No. 9201-15191)

Indexed As: French v. Fish et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Moore, J.

September 22, 1995.

Summary:

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action settled all claims except for the Min­ister of Health's subrogated claim. The Min­ister wished to proceed to trial with the subrogated claim and requested material from the plaintiff's counsel including briefing books, the schedule of witnesses and the evidence to be called on the liability issue. The plaintiff refused, claiming privilege. The Minister sought an order: (1) compelling the plaintiff to co-operate with counsel for the Minister in order to prove the defendants' liability to the plaintiff; (2) compelling counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants to provide the Minister's counsel with state­ments which had been exchanged between counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants; and (3) compelling the plaintiff to provide all trial preparation materials to the Min­ister's counsel.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the Minister's motion subject to certain restrictions.

Government Programs - Topic 1962

Medicare - Administration - Subrogation rights - The plaintiff in a medical mal­practice action settled all claims except for the Minister of Health's subrogated claim - The Minister wished to proceed with the subrogated claim and requested certain material from the plaintiff's counsel - The plaintiff refused, claiming privilege - The Minister sought an order to, inter alia, com­pel the plaintiff to co-operate in prov­ing the defendants' liability - The plaintiff argued that the Minister had no right of subrogation, maintaining that the analogy to the right of subrogation enjoyed by an insurer did not apply - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it was clear that a right of subrogation existed - See paragraphs 27 to 35.

Government Programs - Topic 1962

Medicare - Administration - Subrogation rights - The plaintiff in a medical mal­practice action settled all claims except for the Minister of Health's subrogated claim - The Minister wished to proceed with the subrogated claim and requested certain material from the plaintiff's counsel - The plaintiff refused, claiming privilege - The Minister sought an order: (1) com­pelling the plaintiff to co-operate in prov­ing the defendants' liability; (2) compelling the plaintiff and defendants to provide state­ments which had been exchanged between them; and (3) compelling the plaintiff to provide all trial prepara­tion materials - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion subject to cer­tain re­strictions - The court held that the plaintiff had an obliga­tion to positively assist the Minister in her action to recoup money allocated to pay for the plaintiff's hospital services - See paragraph 39.

Hospitals - Topic 1061

Liability for hospital charges - Subrogated claims - General - [See both Government Programs - Topic 1962 ].

Practice - Topic 205

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - General - The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action settled all claims except for the Minister of Health's subrogated claim - The Minister wished to proceed with the subrogated claim and requested certain material from the plain­tiff's counsel - The plaintiff refused, claiming privilege - The Minister sought an order: (1) compelling the plaintiff to co-operate in proving the defendants' liability; (2) compelling the plaintiff and defendants to provide statements exchanged between them; and (3) compel­ling the plaintiff to provide all trial pre­para­tion materials - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendants did not have status to appear on the motion, where their legal rights would not be directly affected by the outcome and the matter could be settled without them being a party - See paragraphs 55 to 69.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Docu­ments prepared for purpose of settlement - The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action settled all claims except for the Minister of Health's subrogated claim - The Minister wished to proceed with the subrogated claim and requested certain material from the plaintiff's counsel - The plaintiff refused, claiming privilege - The Minister sought an order to, inter alia, compel the plaintiff to co-operate in prov­ing the defendants' liability and to provide certain materials, including all trial pre­paration materials - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion subject to cer­tain restrictions - The court held that without prejudice letters and documents concerning settlement negoti­ations did not have to be delivered to the Minister.

Subrogation - Topic 3963

Effect of subrogation - On rights of action - Plaintiff's duty to cooperate with subrogee - [See second Government Pro­grams - Topic 1962 ].

Cases Noticed:

Unger v. Sun Alliance & London Assur­ance Co., [1978] 4 W.W.R. 759; 11 A.R. 404 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Kiedynk v. John Doe et al. (1991), 116 A.R. 313; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 72 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Kuzyk v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada (1991), 117 A.R. 391; 2 W.A.C. 391; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 221 (C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Bigl v. Alberta (1989), 98 A.R. 203; 67 Alta. L.R.(2d) 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Ledingham v. Minister of Transport, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 332; 2 N.R. 32, refd to. [para. 33].

Royal Insurance Co. v. Bischoff (1968), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 502 (Alta. T.D.), consd. [para. 36].

Farrell Estates Ltd. v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (1989), 44 C.C.L.I. 153 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1990), 44 C.C.L.I. 173 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

Dane v. Mortgage Insurance Corp., [1894] 1 Q.B. 54 (C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

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), 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 271 (C.A.), consd. [para. 41].

Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1988] 3 W.L.R. 939 (H.L.), rervsing. [1988] 2 W.L.R. 533 (C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Beasse et al. (1991), 150 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 47].

Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] C.T.C. 353 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Nova, An Alberta Corp. v. Guelph Engin­eering Co. et al. (1984), 50 A.R. 199; 30 Alta. L.R.(2d) 183 (C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

Waugh v. British Railways Board, [1979] 2 All E.R. 1169 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 49].

Greenough v. Gaskell (1833), 39 E.R. 618, consd. [para. 50].

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, consd. [para. 51].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Bechtel Ltd. et al. (1991), 118 A.R. 162; 80 Alta. L.R.(2d) 98 (Q.B. Master), consd. [para. 56].

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. v. Alberta and Southern Gas Co. et al. (1993), 140 A.R. 244; 10 Alta. L.R.(3d) 325 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., [1956] 1 Q.B. 357, appld. [para. 58].

PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd. v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd. et al. (1994), 150 A.R. 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. v. West Edmonton Mall Ltd. (1994), 159 A.R. 120; 22 Alta. L.R.(3d) 402 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 67].

Fullwood and Fullwood v. Master Exca­vators Ltd. et al. (1981), 34 A.R. 541 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 67].

International Minerals and Chemical Corp. v. Potash Co. of America (1964), 47 D.L.R.(2d) 324 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Gurtner v. Circuit, [1968] 1 All E.R. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Dufourcet v. Bishop (1886), 18 Q.B.D. 373, consd. [para. 72].

Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co. v. Truedell, [1927] 2 D.L.R. 659 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Davis v. MacRitchie et al., [1938] 4 D.L.R. 187 (N.S.T.D.), refd to. [para. 74].

Boag v. Standard Marine Insurance Co., [1937] 2 K.B. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Mason v. Sainsbury (1782), 3 Doug (K.B.) 61, refd to. [Schedule A].

Cleveland v. Yukish (1965), 51 D.L.R.(2d) 208 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Anger v. Dykstra (1984), 43 C.P.C. 268 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Roche Bonhomme Bungalows Ltd. et al. v. Northwestern Utilities Ltd. et al. (1980), 24 A.R. 587 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Strass v. Goldsack, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 155; 58 D.L.R.(3d) 397 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Slavutch v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224; [1975] 4 W.W.R. 620, refd to. [Schedule A].

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

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Eaton (T.) Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610, refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Waxman (I.) & Sons Ltd. v. Texaco Canada Ltd., [1968] 1 O.R. 642 (H.C.), affd. [1968] 2 O.R. 452 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City) (1994), 153 A.R. 161; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 74 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Middelkamp et al. v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board et al. (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 134; 29 W.A.C. 134; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 227 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Bell v. Smith (1968), 68 D.L.R.(2d) 751 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [Schedule A].

Calcraft v. Guest, [1898] 1 Q.B. 759 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Opron Construction Co. v. Alberta (1989), 100 A.R. 58; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 28 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Lyell v. Kennedy (1884), 27 Ch. D. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. et al. (1992), 135 A.R. 21; 33 W.A.C. 21 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Lee and Fishman (1992), 127 A.R. 236; 20 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Chilcott v. Clarkson Co. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 291; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Wolch's Guaranteed Foods Ltd. (Bank­rupt), Re (1994), 152 A.R. 30; 18 Alta. L.R.(3d) 156 (Q.B. Bktcy), refd to. [Schedule A].

Aggio v. Rosenberg (1981), 24 C.P.C. 7 (Ont. Master), refd to. [Schedule A].

Statutes Noticed:

Hospitals Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11, sect. 58 [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bennion, F., Statutory Interpretation: A Code (2nd Ed. 1992), generally [Sched­ule A].

Brown, Craig and Menezes, Julio, Insur­ance Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 324, 325 [Schedule A].

Derham, S.R., Subrogation in Insurance Law (1985), p. 130 [Schedule A].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 368 [Schedule A].

Ivamy, E.R. Hardy, General Principals of Insurance Law (5th Ed. 1986), pp. 469- 470, 475-477 [Schedule A].

Law Society of Alberta, Code of Pro­fes­sional Conduct, c. 10, rule 6, rule 7 [para. 17].

Manes, R.D., and Silver, M.P., Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canadian Law (1993), generally [Schedule A].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 1992), p. 730 [para. 40].

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. McNaugh­ton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, para. 2192 [Schedule A].

Counsel:

L. Darlene Groh (Alberta Justice, Civil Law Branch), for the Minister of Health;

B.E. Devlin (O'Brien Devlin Markey Mac­Leod), for the plaintiff, Lynn French;

J.P. Peacock, Q.C. (Peacock, Linder & Halt), for the Law Society of Alberta;

A.L. Friend (Bennett Jones Verchere), for the defendants.

This motion was heard before Moore, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the fol­lowing judgment on September 22, 1995.