Pocklington Foods Inc. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer), (1993) 135 A.R. 363 (CA)

• Judge: McClung, Harradence and Coté, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 08, 1993
• Citations: (1993), 135 A.R. 363 (CA)

Pocklington Foods Inc. v. Alta. (1993), 135 A.R. 363 (CA);

    33 W.A.C. 363

MLB headnote and full text

Alberta (Provincial Treasurer) (appellant/defendant) v. Pocklington Foods Inc. (respondent/plaintiff)

(Appeal No. 9203-0629-AC)

Indexed As: Pocklington Foods Inc. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer)

Alberta Court of Appeal

McClung, Harradence and Coté, JJ.A.

March 8, 1993.

Summary:

Pocklington Foods sued the Province of Alberta, which claimed that certain docu­ments were privileged from production on the basis of public interest immunity. Pock­lington Foods applied for an order compel­ling production of the documents and to permit its counsel to inspect the documents and to make representations to the court on whether production should be ordered.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 132 A.R. 176, ruled on the disclosure of some of the documents and ordered that Pocklington's counsel inspect the remaining ones in order to make repre­sentations on their disclosure. Alberta appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order that Pockling­ton's counsel inspect the documents, which the court stated would destroy any privilege. The question of whether the remaining documents should be disclosed was remitted to the judge to determine on his own.

Practice - Topic 4588

Discovery - Documents - What docu­ments must be disclosed - Privileged documents - Power of court to inspect - Scope - Inspection by opposing counsel - The plaintiff successfully proposed to a chambers judge that its counsel inspect documents for which privilege was claimed by the defendant in order to assist the judge in determining whether they were privileged - The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the order and held that inspection by opposing counsel would destroy any privilege and that an under­taking by coun­sel not to disclose informa­tion to his client would not protect the privilege - See paragraphs 1 to 45.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McLeod (1883), 8 S.C.R. 1, dist. [paras. 7, 72].

Strass v. Goldsack, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 155 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Kanthal Australia Pty. Ltd. v. Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (1987), 4 F.C.R. 90 (Gen. Div.), consd. [paras. 10, 51].

Alister v. R. (1983), 154 C.L.R. 404; 50 A.L.J.R. 41, 124, refd to. [para. 10].

Hunter v. Canada (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) (1991), 127 N.R. 214; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 497 (F.C.A.), dist. [paras. 11, 53].

K., Re, [1965] A.C. 201 (H.L.), consd. [para. 11].

Warner-Lambert Co. v. Glaxo Labora­tories Ltd., [1975] R.P.C. 354 (C.A.), dist. [paras. 12, 59].

Commonwealth of Australia v. Northern Land Council (1991), 103 A.L.R. 267 (Aust. F.C., Gen. Div.), not folld. [paras. 13, 51, 66].

Descôteaux et Centre Communautaire Juridique de Montréal v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, appld. [para. 16].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Lee (1992), 127 A.R. 236; 20 W.A.C. 236; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 187 (C.A.), appld. [para. 16].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241, consd. [para. 29].

Michel v. Lafrentz (1992), 120 A.R. 355; 85 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Robinson v. State of South Australia (No. 2), [1931] A.C. 704 (P.C.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 5 C.R.(4th) 253, consd. [para. 43].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 58 O.R.(2d) 352; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 14 C.P.C.(2d) 10; 22 Admin. L.R. 236, consd. [paras. 50, 61].

Patterson, Re (No. 2), [1947] 2 W.W.R. 510 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 55].

Reichmann v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. (1990), 44 C.P.C.(2d) 206 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 59].

Official Solicitor to Supreme Court v. K., [1965] A.C. 201 (H.L.), consd. [para. 59].

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. v. R. (1972), 28 D.L.R.(3d) 493 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 61].

Lazin v. CIBA-Geigy Canada Ltd. (1976), 66 D.L.R.(3d) 380 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 61].

Walsh-Canadian Construction Co. v. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. (1979), 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 34; 61 A.P.R. 34; 9 C.P.C. 229 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 61].

Pavey and Pavey v. Furrie et al., [1980] 1 W.W.R. 441; 22 A.R. 615 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 1980. c. A-21, sect. 35 [para. 55].

Evidence Act (Alberta) - see Alberta Evidence Act.

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-18, sect. 11 [para. 55].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 5(e) [para. 40]; rule 194(2) [paras. 14, 39, 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lordon, Paul, Crown Law (1991), p. 513 [para. 56].

Counsel:

A.R. Gray and R.A. Seidel, for the appel­lant;

B. Williams, Q.C., and S. Lindgren, for the respondent.

This case was heard before McClung, Harradence and Coté, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On March 8, 1993, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Coté, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 37;

McClung, J.A. - see paragraphs 38 to 45;

Harradence, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 46 to 73.