Gower v. Tolko Manitoba Inc.,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Huband, Helper and Steel, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 MBCA 11
• Citation: (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA),2001 MBCA 11,196 DLR (4th) 716,[2001] 4 WWR 622,[2001] MJ No 39 (QL),102 ACWS (3d) 681,153 Man R (2d) 20,2 CPC (5th) 197,7 CCEL (3d) 1,153 ManR(2d) 20,[2001] M.J. No 39 (QL),(2001), 153 ManR(2d) 20 (CA),153 Man.R.(2d) 20,196 D.L.R. (4th) 716
• Date: 10 October 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

Gower v. Tolko Man. Inc. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA);

    238 W.A.C. 20

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.018

John Gower (plaintiff/appellant) v. Tolko Manitoba Inc. (defendant/respondent)

(AI 00-30-04465; 2001 MBCA 11)

Indexed As: Gower v. Tolko Manitoba Inc.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Huband, Helper and Steel, JJ.A.

January 29, 2001.

Summary:

An employer received a complaint of sexual harassment against Gower. The em­ployer retained a lawyer to investigate the complaint, report her findings and provide legal advice based on her findings. Fol­lowing receipt of the lawyer's report, the employer fired Gower. Gower brought an action for wrongful dismissal. He applied for production of the report.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ordered production of por­tions of the report. The employer appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 141 Man.R.(2d) 245, allowed the appeal, finding that the entire report was the subject of legal advice priv­ilege. Gower appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attor­ney-client communications - An employer received a complaint of sexual harassment - The employer retained a lawyer to in­vestigate the complaint, report her findings and provide legal advice based on her findings - Following receipt of the lawyer's report, the employer fired Gower - Gower brought an action for wrongful dismissal - He applied for production of the report - A Master ordered production of portions of the report - On appeal, the motions judge found the entire report was the subject of legal advice privilege - In determining whether the attorney-client privilege applied, the question was not whether the attorney was retained to con­duct an investigation, but whether the investigation was related to the rendering of legal advice - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the report was subject to legal advice privilege - Moreover, the employer did not waive the privilege by answering interrogatories respecting al­legations of bad faith.

Practice - Topic 4583

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Opinion expressed in investigative report - [See Practice - Topic 4577 ].

Practice - Topic 4585

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Waiver - [See Practice - Topic 4577 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. [para. 13].

R. v. Campbell (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 13].

Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27, refd to. [para. 14].

General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz (1999), 124 O.A.C. 356; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Director of Investigation and Research v. Shell Canada Ltd. (1975), 55 D.L.R.(3d) 713 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), 449 U.S. 383 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Wilson v. Favelle (1994), 26 C.P.C.(3d) 273 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Desabrais (N.D.) (2000), 146 B.C.A.C. 23; 239 W.A.C. 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Creswell (F.A.) (2000), 146 B.C.A.C. 7; 239 W.A.C. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29]

Cross Lake Indian Band et al. v. Manitoba (1984), 27 Man.R.(2d) 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Strong v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1996), 15 O.T.C. 164; 23 C.C.E.L.(2d) 207 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

Allen, In Re (1997), 106 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.), refd to. [para. 39].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1 refd to. [para. 50].

United States v. Exxon Corp. (1981), 94 F.R.D. 246 (D.C. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Samoila v. Prudential of America General Insurance Co. (Canada), [2000] O.T.C. 598; 50 O.R.(3d) 65 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Society of Manitoba, Code of Profes­sional Conduct, c. 3, generally [para. 20].

Manes, R.D., and Silver, M.P., Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canadian Law (1993), pp. 41 [para. 21]; 127 to 133 [para. 14].

Wigmore on Evidence (1961), vol. 8, para. 2292 [para. 13].

Wigmore on Evidence (1999 Supp.), para. 2296 [para. 39].

Counsel:

C.L. Lazar, for the appellant;

K.L. Gibson and D.P. Negus, for the re­spondent.

This appeal was heard on October 10, 2000, before Huband, Helper and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On January 29, 2001, Steel, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.