Luu (Bankrupt), Re, (2015) 370 B.C.A.C. 271 (CA)

• Judge: D. Smith, Bennett and Willcock, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 21, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 370 B.C.A.C. 271 (CA);2015 BCCA 159

Luu (Bankrupt), Re (2015), 370 B.C.A.C. 271 (CA);

    635 W.A.C. 271

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.027

Wong Tak Man Stephen and Osman Mohammed Arab (respondents/applicants) v. Luu Hung Viet Derrick and Murray Jamieson (appellants/respondents)

(CA041106; 2015 BCCA 159)

Indexed As: Luu (Bankrupt), Re

British Columbia Court of Appeal

D. Smith, Bennett and Willcock, JJ.A.

April 21, 2015.

Summary:

By an order made in a Hong Kong court, Luu was adjudged bankrupt. The bankrukptcy trustees became aware that Luu had obtained judgment for over $3,000,000 U.S. in a B.C. action and the funds received had been paid in trust to Luu's B.C. lawyer (Jamieson). Jamieson refused to disclose information regarding the trust funds to the trustees. The trustees applied for an order compelling Jamieson to produce certain accounting records respecting the funds.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1374, concluded that the information sought was relevant to the trustees' duty to determine Luu's assets and examine his recent transactions. Most of the information sought concerned an objective state of affairs: the value of funds held in trust for Luu, the record of funds provided to Jamieson's firm by Luu or received by the firm to Luu's credit, and records relating to activities in the trust account. The court concluded that that information was not presumptively privileged and could not be said to have arose out of communications for the purposes of obtaining legal advice. The court ordered the disclosure of records of any trust funds held by the firm on behalf of Luu, including records showing to whom, how and when funds were disbursed. The amount of legal fees charged and paid was presumptively privileged. Entries in the ledger showing transfers from trust to payment of fees were not to be disclosed. Any portion of the records containing legal advice or communications for the purpose of obtaining legal advice was to be expunged prior to disclosure. Luu and Jamieson appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1643

Relationship with client - Confidential communications - Ledgers, including trust ledgers - See paragraphs 32 to 50.

Evidence - Topic 4245.1

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Extent of privilege - Effect of client's bankruptcy - See paragraphs 32 to 50.

Evidence - Topic 4245.6

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Lawyer's accounts - See paragraphs 32 to 50.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Attorney-client communications (legal advice privilege) - See paragraphs 32 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Maranda v. Leblanc, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 311 N.R. 357; 2003 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 16].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590, refd to. [para. 16].

Donell et al. v. GJB Enterprises Inc. et al., [2012] 7 W.W.R. 660; 319 B.C.A.C. 17; 542 W.A.C. 17; 2012 BCCA 135, refd to. [para. 16].

Legal Services Society (B.C.) v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (B.C.) et al. (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 234; 300 W.A.C. 234; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 20; 2003 BCCA 278, refd to. [para. 25].

Legal Services Society (B.C.) v. Information and Privacy Commission (B.C.) (1996), 140 D.L.R.(4th) 372 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

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; 164 O.A.C. 280; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 26].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Scheinberg, [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. C88; 1995 CanLII 2774 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Lore Krill Housing Co-operative v. Ramirez (2012), 322 B.C.A.C. 61; 549 W.A.C. 61; 2012 BCCA 223, refd to. [para. 28].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 745, refd to. [para. 32].

Chilcott v. Clarkson Co. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 291; 48 O.R.(2d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (2001), 293 A.R. 73; 257 W.A.C. 73; 2001 ABCA 255, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Joubert (1992), 7 B.C.A.C. 31; 15 W.A.C. 31; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 243; 573 W.A.C. 243; 41 B.C.L.R.(5th) 283; 2013 BCCA 147, varied (2015), 467 N.R. 243; 365 B.C.A.C. 3; 627 W.A.C. 3; 2015 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 44].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2014 QCCA 552, leave to appeal granted [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 234, refd to. [para. 44].

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. 44].

Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 44].

Ontario (Minister of Correctional Services) v. Goodis et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 32; 350 N.R. 154; 214 O.A.C. 377; 2006 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 44].

Blood Tribe Department of Health v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574; 376 N.R. 327; 2008 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

K.M. Wellburn, for the appellants;

T.R.M. Jeffries, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 21, 2015, by D. Smith, Bennett and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Willcock, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on April 21, 2015.