ProSuite Software Ltd. et al. v. Infokey Software Inc. et al., 2015 BCCA 52

• Judge: Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 15, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 52;(2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 74 (CA)

ProSuite Software v. Infokey Software (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 74 (CA);

    633 W.A.C. 74

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.021

ProSuite Software Limited and The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia (respondents/plaintiffs and defendants by way of counterclaim) v. Infokey Software Inc., Dmitri Lounine and Aleksandra Eskova (respondents/defendants) and Do Process LP doing business as Do Process Software (appellant/defendant by way of counterclaim) and MDA Products Ltd., Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (respondents/defendants by way of counterclaim)

(CA042115; 2015 BCCA 52)

Indexed As: ProSuite Software Ltd. et al. v. Infokey Software Inc. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

February 12, 2015.

Summary:

At issue in this copyright case was, inter alia, whether the defendants had waived their solicitor-client privilege when they asserted that an agreement with the plaintiffs had been signed "under duress and without legal advice." A chambers judge held that solicitor-client privilege had not been waived, and dismissed an application by one of the defendants by counterclaim (applicant) for the production of documents related to the legal advice in question. The applicant sought direction as to whether it required leave to appeal the order. If leave to appeal was required it sought an order granting leave.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Goepel, J.A., in a decision reported at (2014), 364 B.C.A.C. 78; 625 W.A.C. 78, held that leave to appeal was required. The court granted leave to appeal. Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the defendants amended their pleading to delete their assertions of duress and lack of legal advice.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Stromberg-Stein, J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal as moot.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - See paragraphs 30 to 33.

Practice - Topic 2104

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Effect of - See paragraphs 30 to 33.

Evidence - Topic 4256

Witnesses - Privilege - Lawyer-client communications - Waiver - Putting communication in issue - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents related to or relevant and material to matters in issue - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Practice - Topic 4577.1

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Solicitor's files, notes, etc. - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Practice - Topic 4585

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Waiver - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Practice - Topic 8800.2

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of law - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Practice - Topic 8858

Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - See paragraphs 30 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Doman Forest Products Ltd. et al. v. GMAC Commercial Credit Corp. - Canada (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 208; 333 W.A.C. 208; 2004 BCCA 512, refd to. [para. 1].

Mayer v. Mayer et al. (2012), 317 B.C.A.C. 132; 540 W.A.C. 132; 2012 BCCA 77, refd to. [para. 16].

Universe Tankers Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transportation Workers' Federation, [1982] 2 All E.R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17].

Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. - see Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp.

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 18].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 19].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 19].

S. & K. Processors Ltd. v. Campbell Ave. Herring Producers Ltd. (1983), 45 B.C.L.R. 218 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

AAB Inc. v. Domtar - see Domtar Inc. v. ABB Inc. et al.

Domtar Inc. v. ABB Inc. et al. (2007), 369 N.R. 152; 2007 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc. - see Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al.

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Association des parents ayants droit de Yellowknife et al. v. Northwest Territories (Attorney General) et al. (2015), 593 A.R. 180; 637 W.A.C. 180; 2015 NWTCA 2, agreed with [para. 21].

Mann v. Carnell (1999), 201 C.L.R. 1 (H.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 22].

Brown et al. v. Clark Wilson LLP et al. (2014), 356 B.C.A.C. 80; 610 W.A.C. 80; 2014 BCCA 185, refd to. [para. 23].

Bank Leu AG v. Gaming Lottery Corp. et al. (1999), 100 O.T.C. 106; 43 C.P.C.(4th) 73 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2000), 132 O.A.C. 127 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Rogers v. Bank of Montreal (1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Langret Investments S.A. et al. v. McDonnell et al. (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 299; 94 W.A.C. 299; 13 B.C.L.R.(3d) 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Bennett v. Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs Service, [2004] FCAC 237, refd to. [para. 23].

Creative Career Systems Inc. et al. v. Ontario et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 649; 2012 ONSC 649, refd to. [para. 25].

Nowak v. Sanyshyn (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 797 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Cheung et al. v. 518402 B.C. Ltd. (1999), 25 B.C.T.C. 67 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. W.C., [1996] A.J. No. 543 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

South West Shore Development Authority v. Ocean Produce International Ltd. (2008), 269 N.S.R.(2d) 379; 860 A.P.R. 379; 2008 NSSC 240, refd to. [para. 32].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 33].

Mapara v. Ferndale Institution (Warden) et al. (2014), 350 B.C.A.C. 36; 598 W.A.C. 36; 2014 BCCA 49, refd to. [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abrams, Linda S., and, McGuinness, Kevin P., Canadian Civil Procedure Law (2008), § 2.230 [para. 22].

Halsbury's Laws of Canada (1st Ed. 2010), HEV 178 [para. 23].

Hubbard et al., The Law of Privilege in Canada (2014), generally [para. 24].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), generally [para. 22].

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. MacNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8 [para. 22].

Counsel:

S.A. Griffin and M.R. Isman, for the appellant, Do Process LP;

D.A. Garner, for the respondents, Infokey Software Inc. and D. Lounine.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on January 15, 2015, by Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal delivered the following reasons for judgment on February 12, 2015, which was comprised of the following opinions:

Newbury, J.A. (D. Smith, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 34;

Stromberg-Stein, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 35 to 46.