Pavey and Pavey v. Furrie, Craig, Howard and Calgary Police Commission, (1979) 22 A.R. 615 (QB)

• Judge: Kerans, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 29, 1979
• Citations: (1979), 22 A.R. 615 (QB)

Pavey v. Furrie (1979), 22 A.R. 615 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Pavey and Pavey v. Furrie, Craig, Howard and Calgary Police Commission

(127078)

Indexed As: Pavey and Pavey v. Furrie, Craig, Howard and Calgary Police Commission

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Kerans, J.

October 29, 1979.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Practice - Topic 4579

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - State or public documents - Police reports - The plaintiffs brought an action against two police officers and the Calgary Police Commission for damages for trespass by the police officers - The defendants claimed Crown privilege for 25 reports by police officers pertaining to the police investigation, which resulted in the alleged trespass on the plaintiff's property - The privilege was claimed on the ground that disclosure would impair the future candor of police officer's in making reports - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the claim for privilege and ordered that the reports be produced - The Court of Queen's Bench held that the test of production was the public interest - See paragraph 12 - The Court of Queen's Bench held that the court should consider the public interest in deciding whether to order disclosure, whether or not a minister of the Crown or other high officer of state has claimed the privilege - See paragraphs 6 to 7 - The Court of Queen's Bench stated that where Crown privilege is claimed, the Attorney General should be notified - See paragraph 18 - The Court of Queen's Bench held that the risk of impairing the candor of future reports was not sufficient to bar production - See paragraphs 19 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Augustine et al. v. City of Saint John (1975), 12 N.B.R.(2d) 59; 10 A.P.R. 59, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Snider, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 483, appld. [para. 6].

Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co. Ltd., [1942] 1 All E.R. 587, not folld. [para. 7].

Gagnon v. Quebec Securities Commission, 50 D.L.R.(2d) 329, consd. [para. 8].

Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] 1 All E.R. 874, appld. [para. 9].

R. v. Homestake Mining Company and Texagulf Potash Company et al., [1977] 3 W.W.R. 629, consd. [para. 9].

Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Anglo-Persian Oil Co. Ltd., [1916-17] All E.R. 637, refd to. [para. 13].

Chatterton v. Secretary of State for India, [1895] 2 Q.B. 189, refd to. [para. 13].

Rogers v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1972] 2 All E.R. 1057, consd. [para. 18].

Smith v. East India Company (1841), 1 Ph. 50, refd to. [para. 20].

Slavutych v. Baker et al., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 22].

Re Blais v. Andras (1973), 30 D.L.R.(3d) 287, consd. [para. 34].

Eccles v. Bourque (1974), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 41].

Bourbonnie v. Union Insurance (1959), 28 W.W.R.(N.S.) 455, consd. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka and Lederman, The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases, p. 239 [para. 13].

Counsel:

C. Maureen Campbell, for the plaintiffs (appellants);

D. Schlittner, for the defendants (respondents).

This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before KERANS, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on October 29, 1979: