A.M. v. Ryan, (1997) 207 N.R. 81 (SCC)
Judge | Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Thursday February 06, 1997 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1997), 207 N.R. 81 (SCC);[1997] SCJ No 13 (QL);68 ACWS (3d) 835;34 CCLT (2d) 1;29 BCLR (3d) 133;4 CR (5th) 220;[1997] 1 SCR 157;207 NR 81;42 CRR (2d) 37;[1997] ACS no 13;JE 97-408;[1997] 4 WWR 1;[1997] CarswellBC 99;85 BCAC 81;8 CPC (4th) 1;1997 CanLII 403 (SCC);143 DLR (4th) 1;138 WAC 81 |
A.M. v. Ryan (1997), 207 N.R. 81 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
A.M. (appellant) v. Clive Ryan and Dr. Kathleen Parfitt (respondents)
(24612)
Indexed As: A.M. v. Ryan
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and
Major, JJ.
February 6, 1997.
Summary:
The plaintiff patient sued the defendant psychiatrist for damages for sexual assault, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of professional duty. The plaintiff received psychiatric treatment from Parfitt, another psychiatrist, for the problems allegedly caused by the defendant's actions. The defendant sought production of Parfitt's clinical records relating to the treatment and services rendered to the patient. Parfitt claimed privilege. A Master ordered production of the documents. Parfitt appealed.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 81 B.C.L.R.(2d) 180, dismissed the appeal. Parfitt appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 51 B.C.A.C. 135; 84 W.A.C. 135, allowed the appeal in part. The records were not privileged, since a doctor could assert privilege only if disclosure would harm the doctor (not proved here). The court ordered disclosure of Parfitt's reporting letters and notes recording discussions between the plaintiff and Parfitt. The court did not order production of Parfitt's personal notes used for diagnostic purposes and imposed conditions on disclosure (e.g., who could see and copy the information). The plaintiff appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. First, the plaintiff retained the right to claim privilege and the appeal was to be decided solely on the issue of privilege (not disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 26(11)). The court affirmed the "partial privilege" result achieved by the Court of Appeal and the conditions limiting who could see or copy the information.
Medicine - Topic 3090
Relation with patient - Charts and records - Confidentiality - General - [See second Practice - Topic 4574.9 and second Practice - Topic 4606 ].
Practice - Topic 4574.9
Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privilege - Partial privilege - The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between absolute or blanket privilege and partial privilege - The court stated that "while the traditional common law categories conceived privilege as an absolute, all-or-nothing proposition, more recent jurisprudence recognizes the appropriateness in many situations of partial privilege. The degree of protection conferred by the privilege may be absolute or partial, depending on what is required to strike the proper balance between the interest in protecting the communication from disclosure and the interest in proper disposition of the litigation. Partial privilege may signify that only some of the documents in a given class must be produced. Documents should be considered individually or by sub-groups on a 'case-by-case' basis." - See paragraph 18.
Practice - Topic 4574.9
Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privilege - Partial privilege - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the need to get to the truth and avoid injustice does not automatically negate the possibility of protection from full disclosure. In some cases, the court may well decide that the truth permits of nothing less than full production. This said, I would venture to say that an order for partial privilege will more often be appropriate in civil cases where, as here, the privacy interest is compelling. Disclosure of a limited number of documents, editing by the court to remove non-essential material, and the imposition of conditions on who may see and copy the documents are techniques which may be used to ensure the highest degree of confidentiality and the least damage to the protected relationship, while guarding against the injustice of cloaking the truth. ... where justice requires that communications be disclosed, the court should consider qualifying the disclosure by imposing limits aimed at permitting the opponent to have the access justice requires while preserving the confidential nature of the documents to the greatest degree possible." - See paragraphs 33, 37.
Practice - Topic 4576
Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Doctor and hospital records - [See second Practice - Topic 4606 ].
Practice - Topic 4606
Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - Doctor and hospital records - A patient sexually assaulted by her former psychiatrist sued for damages - The patient received psychiatric treatment from Parfitt, another psychiatrist, for the problems allegedly caused by the defendant - The defendant successfully sought production of Parfitt's clinical records in her possession relating to the treatment and services rendered to the patient - The patient remained silent, filing no affidavit and not adducing any evidence - The doctor claimed privilege - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the privilege must be claimed by the patient - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the patient's alleged failure to assert privilege before the Master who ordered production did not deprive her of her right to now claim privilege - The patient never waived privilege - The patient appeared through counsel and supported Parfitt's privilege claim - The court stated that "far from waiving privilege, the [patient] has asserted it throughout the proceedings" - See paragraph 14.
Practice - Topic 4606
Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - Doctor and hospital records - A patient sexually assaulted by the defendant psychiatrist sued for damages - The patient received psychiatric treatment from Parfitt, another psychiatrist, for the alleged resulting problems - The defendant sought production of all records, notes, etc., involving treatment, claiming the information was relevant as to whether the sexual assault was causative of all the patient's problems - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the patient-psychiatrist communications were privileged where they were made in confidence, confidentiality was essential to the relationship and the relationship was one which should be sedulously fostered - At issue was whether the interests served by protecting the communications from disclosure outweighed the interest of pursuing the truth - The court stated that "occasional injustice" was not an acceptable price for privilege - Partial privilege was appropriate - All records (except personal notes for diagnostic purposes) were to be disclosed, subject to conditions as to who may see and copy the documents (i.e., limitations to ensure highest degree of confidentiality and least damage to the protected relationship) - See paragraphs 19 to 42.
Cases Noticed:
Trammel v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 40, refd to. [para. 19].
Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 20].
Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 21].
Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 21].
Jaffee v. Redmond (1996), 116 S.Ct. 1923, refd to. [para. 32].
Jaffee v. Redmond (1995), 51 F.3d 1346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].
R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 36].
L.L.A. v. Beharriell, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536; 190 N.R. 329; 88 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 62].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 62].
Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Park (D.G.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; 183 N.R. 81; 169 A.R. 241; 97 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 63].
Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,011, refd to. [para. 63].
Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 64].
Dufault v. Stevens (1978), 6 B.C.L.R. 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
Métropolitaine (La), compagnie d'assurance-vie v. Frenette, Hôpital Jean-Talon et un autre, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 647; 134 N.R. 169; 46 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 73].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 81].
Statutes Noticed:
Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 26(11) [para. 13].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Choate, Clara E., Discovery in Canada (2nd Ed. 1993)(Looseleaf), pp. 1-1 to 1-6 [para. 68].
McLachlin, Beverley M., and Taylor, James P., British Columbia Practice (2nd Ed. 1996)(Looseleaf), vol. 1, p. 26-1 [para. 66].
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (3rd Ed. McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, §2285 [para. 20].
Counsel:
Brian J. Wallace, Q.C., and Carolyn McCool, for the appellant;
Christopher E. Hinkson, Q.C., and William S. Clark, for the respondent, Ryan.
Solicitors of Record:
British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;
Harper Grey Easton, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent, Ryan;
Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent, Parfitt.
This appeal was heard on October 2, 1996, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On February 6, 1997, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 42;
L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 43 to 108.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Capital District Health Authority et al., 2006 NSSC 348
...to. [para. 77]. R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 78]. A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Wright Estate v. Ship Sealnes, [2002] B.C.T.C. Uned. 117; 2002 BSCS 473, ref......
-
R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72
...R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; R. v. Arcuri, 2001 SCC 54, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; R. v. Hart (1999), 174 N.S.R. (2d) 165; R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; Multani v. Comm......
-
R. v. J.J., 2022 SCC 28
...[1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SC......
-
R. v. Trang (D.) et al.,
...8, 74]. Jordan et al. v. United States Department of Justice (1978), 591 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [paras. 8, 64]. A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. Duncan et al. v. Cammell, Laird & Co., [1942] A.C. 62......
-
United States of America v. Ritter, 2006 ABQB 431
...O.T.C. 287 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5]. R. v. Newsom (W.L.) et al. (1996), 197 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5]. A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. R. v. Le (V.) (1997), 197 A.R. 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5]. R. v. Stone (......
-
R. v. L.T.H., 2008 SCC 49
...(3d) 529; R. v. Young (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 350; Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769, 2002 SCC 23; Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710, 2002 SCC 86; R. v. Ha......
-
R. v. Trang (D.) et al.,
...19 to 41. Cases Noticed: R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1997), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 72; 532 A.P.R. 72 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 6, 43]. A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co., [1995] O.J. No. 73 (Gen. Div.), re......
-
Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al.,
...refd to. [para. 66, footnote 42]. Keller v. Penkoske et al. (1999), 256 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 43]. A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 75, footnote Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., ......
-
Reinforcing The Primacy Of Privilege
...336 ["Chambre des notaires"]; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381 ["Thompson"]. M. (A.) v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, at para. 19, citing Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), at p. 50; see also General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz (1999), 45 ......
-
Restrictive Covenants And Non Competes When Selling Or Buying A Business: A Fresh Analysis By The Quebec Court Of Appeal Leads To Anxious Questions
...against reliance on common law precedents.15 Certainly, reliance upon Shafron v. K.R.P. Insurance Brokers (Western Inc.), [2009], 1 S.C.R. 157, as determinative in some way, as Thibault J.A. would have it, is in my view is particularly awkward. In Shafron, Appellant sold his business to K.R......
-
Defence + Indemnity: April 2018 - III. Emerging Technology Issues
...privacy (Murphy at para. 19). McLachlin J. as she then was, noted the following at para. 38 of M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 CanLII 403 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, which was cited by Heeney J. in Stewart at para. I accept that a litigant must accept such intrusions upon her privacy as are necessary......
-
Case Summary: Jones v. I.F. Propco
...privacy (Murphy at para. 19). McLachlin J. as she then was, noted the following at para. 38 of M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 CanLII 403 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, which was cited by Heeney J. in Stewart at para. I accept that a litigant must accept such intrusions upon her privacy as are necessary......
-
Witness Competence, Compellability and Privilege
...paras 46-48, leave to appeal refused (2007), 222 CCC (3d) vi (SCC). 112 R v Karasek , 2011 ABCA 161 at paras 13-19. 113 M (A) v Ryan , [1997] 1 SCR 157, 1997 CanLII 403 at para 7. 114 R v Gruenke , [1991] 3 SCR 263 at 287-89, 1991 CanLII 40. Copyright © 2023 Emond Montgomery Publications. A......
-
Table of cases
...272 Al-Ghamdi v Alberta, 2017 ABQB 684 ................................................................. 99 AM v Ryan, [1997] 1 SCR 157............................................................. 441, 442, 443 Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1724, Order P17-02, 2017 BCIPC 28 ......... 330......
-
The Crises of Marriage Breakdown and Processes for Dealing with Them
...competing public interest outweighs the public interest in encouraging settlement, see Phoa v Ley, 2021 ABCA 195. [2005] AJ No 214 (CA). [1997] 1 SCR 157. [2006] OJ No 1762 (Sup Ct). See also TC v MC, 2017 NBQB 36; Children’s Aid Society of London v CDB, 2011 ONSC 5853; Johnstone v Locke, 2......
-
The Crises of Marriage Breakdown and Processes for Dealing with Them
...SC). 22 SC 1967–68, c 24. 23 (1976), 27 RFL 1 (Ont SC). 24 Piercy v Piercy (1990), 29 RFL (3d) 18 (BCSC). 25 [2005] AJ No 214 (CA). 26 [1997] 1 SCR 157. Chapter 6: The Crises of Marriage Breakdown and Processes for Dealing with Them 139 question of whether admissibility of the marriage-coun......