Davis v. MacKenzie,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Richard and Quigg, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 NBCA 85
• Citation: 2008 NBCA 85,(2008), 338 N.B.R.(2d) 232 (CA),338 NBR (2d) 232,305 DLR (4th) 142,[2008] NBJ No 457 (QL),305 D.L.R. (4th) 142,338 NBR(2d) 232,[2008] N.B.J. No 457 (QL),(2008), 338 NBR(2d) 232 (CA),338 N.B.R.(2d) 232
• Date: 09 September 2008
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

MacKenzie v. Davis (2008), 338 N.B.R.(2d) 232 (CA);

    338 R.N.-B.(2e) 232; 866 A.P.R. 232

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.013

Renvoi temp.: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.013

Linda Davis and Thomas Davis (appellants) v. Barbara MacKenzie (respondent)

(26-08-CA; 2008 NBCA 85)

Indexed As: MacKenzie v. Davis

Répertorié: MacKenzie v. Davis

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Richard and Quigg, JJ.A.

September 9, 2008.

Summary:

Résumé:

Defendants in an action for damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident sought production of all correspondence between the plaintiff's solicitor and three medical doctors whom the plaintiff intended to call at trial.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at (2008), 330 N.B.R.(2d) 198; 845 A.P.R. 198, dismissed the motion. The defendants appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court ordered immediate production of the letters at issue.

Practice - Topic 4573.1

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Experts' reports (incl. documentary basis) - [See Practice - Topic 4578 ].

Practice - Topic 4578

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared in contemplation of litigation (litigation privilege or work product privilege) - Defendants in an action for damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident sought production of all correspondence between the plaintiff's solicitor and three medical doctors whom the plaintiff intended to call at trial - The motion was dismissed - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal - Where a party intended to call an expert witness at trial, rule 52.01 required service on every other party of the expert's report - Rule 52.01(4) vested in the court the power to order production of "any records, documents or other materials on which the report" was based - A liberal and purposive approach to the interpretation of rule 52.01(4) compelled the conclusion that it covered all records, documents or other materials that had some bearing on the contents of the expert's report - Each of those things was a foundational element since its influence was reflected in the finished product - Thus, any instructing letter was caught by the rule - Its production was automatic once rule 52.01(1) was engaged - The court rejected MacKenzie's claim of litigation privilege over counsel's routine letters to her doctors - There was no basis in law for the privilege asserted over those - As to the more substantive letters, rule 52.01(4) operated to make them producible - Further, fairness dictated the exercise of the court's discretion in favour of production - The defendants' motion was timely - They faced a complex claim and full production would be helpful - Concealment of relevant documents, whether legally justified or not, rarely helped in disposing of the action or in accelerating its progression - The court ordered immediate production of the letters at issue - See paragraphs 20 to 44.

Procédure - Cote 4573.1

Enquête préalable - Documents à produire - Rapports d'experts (y compris l'assise documentaire) - [Voir Practice - Topic 4573.1 ].

Procédure - Cote 4578

Enquête préalable - Documents à produire - Documents privilégiés - Documents préparés en vue du procès (privilège relatif au litige ou privilège relatif au produit du travail de l'avocat) - [Voir Practice - Topic 4578 ].

Cases Noticed:

O'Neill v. Campbell (1994), 159 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 409 A.P.R. 273 (T.D.), dist. [para. 7].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; 352 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 16].

Bell Canada v. Olympia & York Developments Ltd. (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 103 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Calvaruso v. Nantais et al. (1992), 7 C.P.C.(3d) 254 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 16].

Browne v. Lavery et al., [2002] O.T.C. 109; 58 O.R.(3d) 49 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Savoie v. Clark (2006), 303 N.B.R.(2d) 90; 787 A.P.R. 90; 2006 NBQB 143, refd to. [para. 22].

Conceicao Farms Inc. et al. v. Zeneca Corp. et al. (2006), 214 O.A.C. 161; 83 O.R.(3d) 792 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Canada Post Corp. v. Cormier (Euclide) Plumbing and Heating Inc. et al. (2008), 334 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 858 A.P.R. 211; 2008 NBCA 54, refd to. [para. 26].

Horodynsky Farms Inc. et al. v. Zeneca Corp. et al., [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 179 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Llewellyn v. Carter et al. (2008), 278 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 96; 854 A.P.R. 96; 2008 PESCAD 12, refd to. [para. 26].

Stamper v. Finnigan et al. (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 411; 148 A.P.R. 411, refd to. [para. 27].

Edgar v. Auld et al. (2000), 225 N.B.R.(2d) 71; 578 A.P.R. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lamey v. Rice (2000), 227 N.B.R.(2d) 295; 583 A.P.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

North American Life Assurance Co. v. Pitblado & Hoskin et al. (2002), 164 Man.R.(2d) 42 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 32].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 34].

Stone v. Sharp (2008), 333 N.B.R.(2d) 220; 855 A.P.R. 220; 2008 NBCA 55, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Kay v. Kay (1999), 215 N.B.R.(2d) 291; 551 A.P.R. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Reilly v. Paul (2006), 305 N.B.R.(2d) 146; 791 A.P.R. 146; 2006 NBCA 84, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 52.01 [Appendix A].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Epstein, Edna Selan, The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product Doctrine (4th Ed. 2001), pp. 479, 480, 481 [para. 40].

Manes, Ronald D., and Silver, Michael P., Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canadian Law (1993), p. 163 [para. 23].

Sharpe, Robert J., Claiming Privilege in the Discovery Process, in Law in Transition: Evidence, Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures (1984), pp. 163 [paras. 29, 41]; 164, 165 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Edwin G. Ehrhardt, Q.C., for the appellants;

Peter F. Blair, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard and judgment rendered on September 9, 2008, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Richard and Quigg, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. On November 27, 2008, Drapeau, C.J.N.B., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court in both official languages.