Kripps et al. v. Touche Ross & Co. et al., (1991) 4 B.C.A.C. 304 (CA)

• Judge: Taggart, Macdonald, Locke, Southin and Gibbs, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 26, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 304 (CA)

Kripps v. Touche Ross & Co. (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 304 (CA);

    9 W.A.C. 304

MLB headnote and full text

Stephen Kripps, Agnes Kripps, Edward J. Thorpe, Frank H. Bourne, Robert W. George, Ronald B. Gunraj and Ronald J. Myers et al. (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Touche Ross & Co., Victoria Mortgage Corporation Ltd., Oakside Corporation Ltd., Herman G. Bessert, Robert E. Mitchell, Hugh M. Blair, Daniel P. Kramer, James D. Kadlec and Douglas T. Hawkes (defendants) and Touche Ross & Co. (appellant)

(No. CA011195)

Indexed As: Kripps et al. v. Touche Ross & Co. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Taggart, Macdonald, Locke, Southin and Gibbs, JJ.A.

June 4, 1991.

Summary:

Touche Ross & Co. was ordered to produce a document for inspection and copying for discovery purposes. Touche Ross & Co. appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 4575

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privilege - General - A company's auditor was ordered to produce a letter written to the company's receiver - The auditor appealed, claiming that the document was privileged because it was confidential (i.e., to ensure full disclosure between auditor and receiver the parties must be assured that their communications would remain confidential) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the letter should be produced - The court held that the chambers judge was correct in concluding that the benefit to be gained through the correct disposal of the litigation outweighed the fostering of good relations between auditor and receiver - See paragraphs 8, 9.

Practice - Topic 4580

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared for purpose of settlement - A company's auditor was ordered to produce a letter written to the company's receiver - The auditor appealed, claiming the letter was privileged because it was written in an effort to settle other court proceedings - The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused to consider this argument where there was no firm and precise factual foundation for doing so - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1988] 3 All E.R. 737; 104 N.R. 392 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 1].

Slavutch v. Board of Governors of the University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Brenda Brown, for the appellant;

   James F. Dixon, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 26, 1991, in Vancouver, B.C., before Taggart, Macdonald, Locke, Southin and Gibbs, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Taggart, J.A., on June 4, 1991.