Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2001) 290 A.R. 228 (QB)

• Judge: Murray, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 22, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 290 A.R. 228 (QB)

Phillip v. Whitecourt Hospital (2001), 290 A.R. 228 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. AP.114

Montana Niketa Phillip, a minor by her next friend, Yvonne Bertha Phillip, Yvonne Bertha Phillip and Jay Bernard Phillip (applicants/plaintiffs) v. The Whitecourt General Hospital, Whitecourt Health Care Centre, Aspen Regional Health Authority #11, Harvey A. Bablitz, Pierre Morrisette, University of Alberta Hospital, University of Alberta Hospitals Board, Capital Health Authority, Douglas K. Still, Linda M. Casey and David Schiff (respondents/defendants)

(Action No. 9603-01800)

Indexed As: Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Murray, J.

April 5, 2001.

Summary:

The infant plaintiff and her parents sued the defendant doctors for negligent treatment. The plaintiffs applied for a declaration that the defendants were not to conduct interviews with the treating physicians, or alternatively, if they did, the plaintiffs' counsel was entitled to notice and to be present at the interviews. Further, the plaintiffs sought copies of defence counsel's notes from interviews that had already been conducted with the treating physicians.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that defence counsel was entitled to interview the treating physicians. The court set out the procedure to be followed where defence counsel wished to interview a plaintiff's treating physicians. The plaintiffs' counsel was entitled to notice but was not entitled to be present. The defendants were not required to disclose notes from the interviews that had already been conducted.

Evidence - Topic 4007

Witnesses - Pretrial interviews - The plaintiffs sued the defendant doctors for negligent treatment - The defendants sought to interview the infant plaintiff's treating physicians - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "once a patient commences legal proceedings, the right of that patient to confidentiality, vis-à-vis the adverse party, ceases" - "... the patient's right to confidentiality and privacy is overridden by 'the public interest in an efficient administration of justice, including the right to full and complete defence' and the need to protect the integrity of the principles inherent in our adversarial system of justice" - Defence counsel was entitled to interview a treating physician provided that the physician agreed - The court set out the procedure to be followed where defence counsel wished to interview a plaintiff's treating physicians - The plaintiffs' counsel was entitled to notice but was not entitled to be present - Defence counsel was not required to produce notes of interviews that had already been conducted because they were privileged.

Medicine - Topic 3092

Relation with patient - Charts, records, opinions and reports - Confidentiality - Waiver of - [See Evidence - Topic 4007 ].

Practice - Topic 4577.1

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Solicitor's files, notes, etc. - [See Evidence - Topic 4007 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sugarman v. Findlay (1997), 214 A.R. 118 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Sugarman v. Radomsky - see Sugarman v. Findlay.

Hay et al. v. University of Alberta and Sterns et al. (1990), 105 A.R. 276; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 391 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Halls v. Mitchell, [1928] S.C.R. 125, refd to. [para. 17].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 415, refd to. [para. 18].

Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224; 38 C.R.N.S. 306; [1975] 4 W.W.R. 620, refd to. [para. 20].

Strass v. Goldsack et al. (1975), 58 D.L.R.(3d) 397 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McClure (D.E.) (2001), 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

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. 22].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 22].

Dorchak v. Krupka (1997), 196 A.R. 81; 141 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 745, refd to. [para. 26].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 26].

Cook v. Washuta (1985), 11 O.A.C. 171; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Cook v. Ip - see Cook v. Washuta.

Métropolitaine compagnie d'assurance-vie v. Frenette, Hôpital Jean-Talon et un autre, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 647; 134 N.R. 169; 46 Q.A.C. 161; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 653, refd to. [para. 32].

Dufault v. Stevens (1978), 86 D.L.R.(3d) 671 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

St. Louis v. Feleki (1990), 75 D.L.R.(4th) 758 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

Morin v. Tessier, [1994] O.J. No. 361 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Wells v. Paramsothy et al. (1996), 98 O.A.C. 233 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal dismissed [1997] O.J. No. 671 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Swirski v. Hatchey, [1996] 5 W.W.R. 214 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jordan, [1977] A.C. 699 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 49].

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. Watt (1992), 131 A.R. 142; 25 W.A.C. 142; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 733 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Ottawa-Carleton (Regional Municipality) v. Consumers' Gas Co. et al. (1990), 41 O.A.C. 65; 74 O.R.(2d) 637 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Medical Association, Code of Conduct, rule 22 [para. 16].

Law Society of Alberta, Code of Professional Conduct, c. 10, rule 22, Commentary [paras. 4, 24].

McLachlin, Beverley, Confidential Communications and Law of Privilege (1977), 11 U.B.C. Law Rev. 266, p. 279 [para. 31].

Sopinka, John, Lederman Sidney N., and Bryant Alan W., The Law of Evidence (2nd Ed.), generally [para. 26]; p. 747 [para. 54].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2001), generally [para. 26].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, p. 527 [para. 20].

Counsel:

G.B. Romanchuk and R.J. Wasylyshyn, for the applicants;

B.F. Windwick, for the respondent hospital;

R.B. Low, Q.C., and M.E. Killoran, for the respondents, Bablitz, Morrisette, Still, Casey and Schiff.

This matter was heard on March 22, 2001, before Murray, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on April 5, 2001.