Guarantee Co. of North America v. Beasse et al., (1991) 150 A.R. 241 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 1991
• Citations: (1991), 150 A.R. 241 (QB)

Guarantee Co. of North Am. v. Beasse (1991), 150 A.R. 241 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

The Guarantee Company of North America (plaintiff) v. Roger Beasse, Shirley Beasse, Robdale Contractors Ltd., 239223 Alberta Ltd., Henlo Enterprises Ltd., Robdale Roadbuilders Ltd., Lester Sorenson, Greg Charette and Beasse Charette Sorenson Equipment Leasing Ltd. (defendants)

Beasse Charette Sorenson Equipment Leasing Ltd. (plaintiff by counterclaim) v. Robdale Contractors Ltd. and The Guarantee Company of North America (defendants by counterclaim) and Robdale Contractors Ltd., Roger Beasse, Shirley Beasse, 239223 Alberta Ltd. and Henlo Enterprises Ltd. (third parties by counterclaim) (Action No. 8501-16233)

Robdale Contractors Ltd. (plaintiff) v. The Guarantee Company of North America (defendant) (Action No. 8703-12813)

(Consolidated Action No. 8701-16630)

Indexed As: Guarantee Co. of North America v. Beasse et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

June 25, 1991.

Summary:

Guarantee Company of North America denied production of some 140 documents and certain files on the basis of privilege. Robdale Contractors applied for an order directing production.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law relating to the claim of privilege and ordered accordingly.

Practice - Topic 4575

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privilege - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law relating to the claim of privilege in the following areas: (1) communications between solicitor and client; (2)"lawyers briefs"; (3) documents prepared in con­templation of litigation; and (4) communi­cations with third parties, including "with­out prejudice" communications.

Practice - Topic 4575

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privilege - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "it would seem trite that there would be no privilege attached to a document between a party and a third party, if the document is of relevance to litigation between the parties" - However, the court held that a "without prejudice" communication between a party to an action and a non-party, which was protected as privileged between the party and the non-party, was also protected as privileged between the parties to the action - See paragraphs 42 to 45.

Practice - Topic 4575

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privilege - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that, in the absence of some other basis for privilege, a party on whose application a receiver was appointed by the court, could not maintain a claim for privilege for communications between it and the receiver, in litigation between it and the party in receivership - See paragraph 61.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attor­ney-client communications - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that com­munications between a party and its coun­sel did not fit within the solicitor-client privilege, where the communications were made in a context where counsel was not providing legal advice, but was acting as the party's alter ego or agent to carry out the party's purpose - See paragraph 22.

Cases Noticed:

Strass v. Goldsack, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 155 (Alta. C.A.), appld. [para. 14].

Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] C.T.C. 353 (Ex. Ct.), consd. [para. 19].

Perini Ltd. v. Toronto Parking Authority (1975), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 683 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

Warunki v. Warunki (1983), 44 A.R. 135; 24 Alta. L.R.(2d) 266 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Griffiths v. Mohat, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 477 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

McGregor v. Dorn et al. (1988), 92 A.R. 45; 63 Alta. L.R.(2d) 378 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Nova, An Alberta Corp. v. Guelph Engin­eering Co. et al. and Daniel Valve Co. et al. (1984), 50 A.R. 199 (C.A.), affing. (1983), 48 A.R. 241; 27 Alta. L.R.(2d) 268 (Q.B.), appld. [para. 34].

Johnson (S.E.) Management Ltd. v. Pigott Construction Ltd. et al. (1988), 87 A.R. 260 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 34].

Opron Construction Co. v. Alberta (1989), 100 A.R. 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Miller (Ed) Sales & Rentals Ltd. v. Cater­pillar Tractor Co. et al. (1988), 88 A.R. 107; 57 Alta. L.R.(2d) 182 (Q.B.), revd. in part (1988), 90 A.R. 323; 61 Alta. L.R.(2d) 319; 22 C.P.R.(3d) 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Waxman (I.) & Sons Ltd. v. Texaco Canada Ltd., [1968] 1 O.R. 642; 67 D.L.R.(2d) 295 (H.C.), affd. [1968] 2 O.R. 452; 69 D.L.R.(2d) 543 (C.A.), folld. [para. 46].

Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Cat­erpillar Tractor Co. et al. (1990), 105 A.R. 4; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 330 (Q.B.), affd. (1990), 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

SLP Resources Inc. v. Sorrel Resources Ltd. (1987), 65 C.B.R.(N.S.) 288 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

McMeckan v. Aitken (1895), 21 V.L.R. 65 (Aus.), refd to. [para. 57].

Trusts and Guarantee Co. v. Grand Valley Railway Co. (1915), 24 D.L.R. 171 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Newdigate Colliery Co., Re, [1912] 1 Ch. 468 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Ostrander v. Niagara Helicopters Ltd. (1973), 19 C.B.R.(N.S.) 5 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Royal Bank v. Vista Homes Ltd. (1984), 54 C.B.R.(N.S.) 124 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Fotti v. 777 Management Inc., [1981] 5 W.W.R. 48; 9 Man.R.(2d) 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57].

Newhart Development Ltd. v. Co-opera­tive Commercial Bank Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 814; [1978] 2 All E.R. 896 (C.A.), consd. [para. 58].

Flegel Construction Ltd. v. Cambac Finan­cial Projects Ltd. and Pierlot Yakinowick Donald Engineering Ltd. et al. (1983), 44 A.R. 181 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 62].

Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. et al. v. Border Credit Union Ltd. (1988), 90 A.R. 15; 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 356 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 65].

Hamilton and Malm v. Alberta (Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services) et al. (1991), 118 A.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].

Creaser v. Warren and Warren (1987), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 429; 191 A.P.R. 429; 36 D.L.R.(4th) 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Brampton Engineering Inc. v. Alros Prod­ucts Ltd. (1986), 8 C.P.C.(2d) 48 (Ont. Master), refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 186(2) [para. 27]; rule 194(2) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alderson, Law of Receivers (1905), pp. 326 to 327 [para. 57].

Bar Admission Course Materials - Credi­tors' and Debtors' Rights 1987-88, (1988), p. 131 [para. 55].

Bennett, Receiverships (1988), pp. 370 to 371 [para. 57].

Kerr on the Law and Practice as to Receivers and Administrators (17th Ed. 1989), pp. 5 to 6, 130, 145 [para. 57].

Lederman, Discovery - Production of Documents - Claim of Privilege to Pre­vent Disclosure (1976), 54 Can. Bar Rev. 422, generally [para. 64].

Picarda, The Law Relating to Receivers and Managers (1984), pp. 272 to 273 [para. 56].

Robinson, Receivership (1983), pp. 212 to 221 [para. 57].

Sopinka and Lederman, The Law of Evi­dence in Civil Cases (1974), pp. 196 to 199 [para. 43]; 199 [para. 46].

Wigmore on Evidence (4th Ed.), generally [para. 14].

Counsel:

W.G. Geddes, for the applicants;

J.C. van der Lee, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on June 25, 1991.