Pritchard v. HRC, (2004) 187 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
Judge | Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | March 23, 2004 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2004), 187 O.A.C. 1 (SCC);2004 SCC 31;[2004] ACS no 16;319 NR 322;238 DLR (4th) 1;12 Admin LR (4th) 171;33 CCEL (3d) 1;[2004] 1 SCR 809;187 OAC 1;[2004] SCJ No 16 (QL);49 CHRR 120;19 CR (6th) 203 |
Pritchard v. HRC (2004), 187 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.039
Colleen Pritchard (appellant) v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Manitoba Human Rights Commission (interveners)
(29677; 2004 SCC 31; 2004 CSC 31)
Indexed As: Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
March 23, 2004.
Summary:
Pritchard filed a human rights complaint against her former employer. The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to deal with most of Pritchard's complaint. Pritchard applied for judicial review. She sought production of various documents, including a legal opinion that had been prepared for the Commission by in-house counsel. The Commission refused to disclose the material.
The Ontario Divisional Court, per MacFarland, J., in a decision reported at 148 O.A.C. 260, ordered that the documents be produced. MacFarland, J., held, inter alia, that the legal opinion was not protected by solicitor-client privilege. The Commission sought a review of MacFarland, J.'s decision by a full panel of the court on the issue of production of the legal opinion.
The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, affirmed MacFarland's decision. The Commission appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 167 O.A.C. 356, allowed the appeal. Pritchard appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Editor's note: for a related decision see 122 O.A.C. 302.
Administrative Law - Topic 2264
Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to deal with Pritchard's complaint - Pritchard applied for judicial review - She sought disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the Commission by in-house counsel - The opinion had been before the Commission when it made its decision - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the opinion was subject to solicitor-client privilege - The court stated that "Procedural fairness does not require the disclosure of a privileged legal opinion. Procedural fairness is required both in the trial process and in the administrative law context. In neither area does it affect solicitor-client privilege; both may coexist without being at the expense of the other. In addition, [Pritchard] was aware of the case to be met without production of the legal opinion. The concept of fairness permeates all aspects of the justice system, and important to it is the principle of solicitor-client privilege." - See paragraph 31.
Administrative Law - Topic 2402
Natural justice - Procedure - General - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 ].
Administrative Law - Topic 3213
Judicial review - General - Material required to be produced on review - The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to deal with Pritchard's complaint - Pritchard applied for judicial review - She sought disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the Commission by in-house counsel - The opinion had been before the Commission when it made its decision - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the opinion was subject to solicitor-client privilege - It was a communication from a professional advisor, in her capacity as such, and made in confidence to her client, the Commission - The court stated that solicitor-client privilege applied "with equal force in the context of advice given to an administrative board by in-house counsel as it does to advice given in the realm of private law. If an in-house lawyer is conveying advice that would be characterized as privileged, the fact that he or she is 'in-house' does not remove the privilege, or change its nature." - See paragraphs 21 and 36.
Administrative Law - Topic 3213
Judicial review - General - Material required to be produced on review - The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to deal with Pritchard's complaint - Pritchard applied for judicial review - She sought disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the Commission by in-house counsel - The opinion had been before the Commission when it made its decision - Section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act required that the record of proceedings be produced upon an application for judicial review - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that legislation purporting to limit or deny solicitor-client privilege had to be interpreted restrictively - Solicitor-client privilege could not be abrogated by inference - The court stated that "Section 10 of the [Act] ... does not clearly or unequivocally express an intention to abrogate solicitor-client privilege, nor does it stipulate that the 'record' includes legal opinions. As such, 'record of the proceedings' should not be read to include privileged communications from Commission counsel to the Commission." -See paragraphs 32 to 35.
Administrative Law - Topic 3213
Judicial review - General - Material required to be produced on review - The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to deal with Pritchard's complaint - Pritchard applied for judicial review - She sought disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the Commission by in-house counsel - The opinion had been before the Commission when it made its decision - Pritchard argued that solicitor-client privilege did not attach to communications between a solicitor and client against persons having a "joint interest" with the client in the subject matter of the communication - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The common interest exception does not apply to an administrative board with respect to the parties before it" - In particular the court held that the exception did not apply to the Commission because it did not share an interest with the parties before it - The Commission was a disinterested gatekeeper for human rights complainants and, by definition, did not have a stake in the outcome of any claim - See paragraphs 22 to 26.
Administrative Law - Topic 3213
Judicial review - General - Material required to be produced on review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 7046
Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 7119
Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Discovery and disclosure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2264 and first, second and third Administrative Law - Topic 3213 ].
Evidence - Topic 4245.7
Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Common interest privilege - [See third Administrative Law - Topic 3213 ].
Evidence - Topic 4245.8
Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Privilege - Communications with in-house counsel - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3213 ].
Cases Noticed:
Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 14].
Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 15].
Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 17].
Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 164 O.A.C. 280; 2002 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 138 D.L.R.(3d) 221 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
Buttes Gas & Oil v. Hammer (No. 3), [1980] 3 All E.R. 475 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].
Melanson v. Workers' Compensation Board (N.B.) (1994), 146 N.B.R.(2d) 294; 374 A.P.R. 294 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 26].
Statutes Noticed:
Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J-1, sect. 10 [para. 32].
Counsel:
Geri Sanson and Mark Hart, for the appellant;
Anthony D. Griffin and Hart Schwartz, for the respondent;
Christopher M. Rupar, for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;
Leslie M. McIntosh, for the intervener, Attorney General of Ontario;
Andrea Wright and Monette Maillet, for the intervener, Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Aaron L. Berg, for the intervener, Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
Solicitors of Record:
Sanson & Hart, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;
Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Ontario;
Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Manitoba Human Rights Commission, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
This appeal was heard and decided on March 23, 2004, by Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 14, 2004, Major, J., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court in both official languages.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53
...Association, 2010 SCC 23, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815; R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20, [2016] 1 S.C.R.......
-
Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44
...preserving the privilege as much as possible. [31] [33‑34] Cases Cited Referred to: Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, 2004 SCC 31; R. v. McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445, 2001 SCC 14; Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. ......
-
Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2004) 325 N.R. 315 (FCA)
...20]. Borden & Elliot v. R. (1975), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 337 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20]. Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (2004), 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [para. Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292......
-
Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20
...1 S.C.R. 381; Organic Research Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 111 A.R. 336; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; R. v. Dunbar (1982), 68 C.C.C. (2d) 13; A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536; R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577;......
-
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53
...Association, 2010 SCC 23, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815; R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20, [2016] 1 S.C.R.......
-
Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44
...preserving the privilege as much as possible. [31] [33‑34] Cases Cited Referred to: Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, 2004 SCC 31; R. v. McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445, 2001 SCC 14; Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. ......
-
Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2004) 325 N.R. 315 (FCA)
...20]. Borden & Elliot v. R. (1975), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 337 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20]. Pritchard v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (2004), 319 N.R. 322; 187 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 31, refd to. [para. Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292......
-
Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20
...1 S.C.R. 381; Organic Research Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1990), 111 A.R. 336; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809; R. v. Dunbar (1982), 68 C.C.C. (2d) 13; A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536; R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577;......
-
The Dispute Resolution Review - 9th Edition
...University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53. 39 [1999] 1 SCR 565. 40 This position was confirmed in Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 at para. 41 2010 SCC 16. 42 For further discussion on this topic, see Brandon Kain, 'Solicitor-Client Privilege and the Conflict of Laws' (2......
-
A Canadian Perspective On Global Investigations Around The World
...by the attorney-client privilege (Solosky v. The Queen [1980] 1 SCR 821 at 835, 837; Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) [2004] 1 SCR 809 at Paragraph 15). Corporations invoking such a privilege cannot be compelled to divulge communications, absent a finding that the corporation ......
-
Solicitor-Client Privilege and Email Chains: Conundrum or Continuum?
...legal advice is provided in relation to litigation.5 The Court then looks at the cases of Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 and R. v. Campbell, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565, which both consider solicitor-client privilege as it relates to government lawyers. Both of those ca......
-
Why Your Internal Communications May Be At Risk
...Ibid., at para. 47. R. v. Solosky, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 at p. 835, affirmed in Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809 at para. 15. IBM Canada Ltd. v. Xerox of Canada Ltd. [1978] 1 F.C. 513 at para. 9. See, for example, in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Leigh Instrument......
-
Table of cases
...QCCA 1394 .......................................................................... 204 Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 ............ 281, 336 Prostitution Reference. See Reference re ss 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code PSC Industrial Canada Inc v Ontario ......
-
Privileges, Protections, and Immunities
...2014 ABCA 289 [ Canadian Natural Resources ]. 55 Shirose , above note 24 at para 50, and Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission) , [2004] 1 SCR 809 at para 20 [ Pritchard ]. 56 British Columbia (Attorney General) v Lee , 2017 BCCA 219 at para 40. 57 Maranda v Richer , [2003] 3 SCR 193......
-
Table of cases
...419, 421 Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31 ............158, 160, 169, 195, 247, 409 Proulx v Quebec (AG), 2001 SCC 66 ......................................................... 582, 603 Purcell v District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 676 NE2d 436 (Mass 1997) ........
-
Table of cases
.................................................................................... 144 Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, 238 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 2004 SCC 31..........................................................117, 123 LEGAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI......