Paul's Hauling Ltd. and Workers' Compensation Board (Man.) et al. v. Baumung, (1986) 49 Sask.R. 213 (QB)

• Judge: Maher, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 10, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1986), 49 Sask.R. 213 (QB)

Paul's Hauling Ltd. v. Baumung (1986), 49 Sask.R. 213 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Paul's Hauling Ltd., a body corporate with head office in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, and the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, a statutory body, with head office in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, and Donald Eisener, of the City of Brandon, in the Province of Manitoba; and the Workers' Compensation Board, a statutory body, with head office in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba (plaintiffs) v. William Baumung, of the District of Calder, in the Province of Saskatchewan (defendant)

(No. 1013 A.D. 1980)

Indexed As: Paul's Hauling Ltd. and Workers' Compensation Board (Man.) et al. v. Baumung

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Maher, J.

June 10, 1986.

Summary:

The defendant applied for determination of whether certain documents were privileged as claimed by the Manitoba Workers' Compensation Board. An officer of the Board stated in examination that the documents, consisting of briefs and memorandums, were prepared by their solicitors to determine the eligibility of the plaintiff, Eisener for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and in contemplation of litigation.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the Board's claim and held that the documents were not subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Evidence - Topic 4238

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Documents prepared in contemplation of litigation - The Workers' Compensation Board claimed solicitor-client privilege for documents prepared to determine the eligibility of a plaintiff for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and in contemplation of litigation - The defendant opposed the claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the Board's claim for privilege - The court stated that documents should only be accorded privilege if the dominant purpose for which they were prepared was litigation or the anticipation of litigation.

Cases Noticed:

McLellan v. Tibo and The Queen, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 652, overruled [para. 7].

Bourbonnie v. Union Insurance Society of Canton Limited (1958), 28 W.W.R.(N.S.) 455, overruled [para. 7].

Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co. Ltd. v. London and North Western Railway Co., [1913] 3 K.B. 850, not folld. [para. 8].

Waugh v. British Railways Board, [1979] 2 All E.R. 1169, appld. [para. 9].

Voth Bros. Const. (1974) Ltd. v. North Vancouver School Dist. 44 Bd. of School Trustees, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 91, refd to. [para. 10].

Nova v. Guelph Eng. et al., [1984] 3 W.W.R. 314; 50 A.R. 199, refd to. [para. 10].

Levin v. Boyce (1985), 34 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 M.V.R. 55, refd to. [para. 10].

Davies v. Harrington (1980), 39 N.S.R.(2d) 258; 71 A.P.R. 258, refd to. [para. 10].

McCaig v. Trentowsky (1983), 47 N.B.R.(2d) 71; 124 A.P.R. 71; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 724, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

M. Kobrynsky, for the applicant (defendant);

A. Brent, for the respondent (plaintiff) The Workers' Compensation Board - (Manitoba).

This application was heard before Maher, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on June 10, 1986: