R. v. HUSKY ENERGY INC.
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
| Judge | KALMAKOFF J. |
| Citation | 2017 SKQB 383 |
| Date | 20 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | QBG 1751 of 2017 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
9 practice notes
-
THE TROUBLE WITH WIGMORE: A NEW APPROACH TO IMPLIED WAIVER OF SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
...(84) See McMahon v Harper, 2017 BCSC 2328 at para 166; R v Bruce Power Inc, 2005 CarswellOnt 12052 (CJ) at para 40; R v Husky Oil Inc, 2017 SKQB 383 at para 40. The opposing party should not be required to show the likely impact of the privileged evidence. In many cases, that would require ......
-
Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc. v. Aphria Inc.
...and Surgeons of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2779 (C.A.). [23] 2017 SKQB 383. [24] ADVANCE \r 1 Badesha (Litigation guardian of) v. Haider, 2017 ONSC 1745; Panetta v. Retrocom Mid-Market Real Estate Investment Trust, 20......
-
Internal Investigations And Disclosure Of Sensitive Information: What Protections Can Legal Privileges Offer?
...(FCA); Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2013 FCA 104, 28; R. v Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383 (Husky), 20; R. (Canada) c. Groupe SNC-Lavalin inc., 2016 QCCS 4 Singh v. Edmonton (City), [1994] A.J. No. 894; Manah v. Edmonton Northlands......
-
SASKATCHEWAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION
...the person’s control a document relevant to any matter in issue that is not privileged. [Emphasis added] [79] In R v Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383, Kalmakoff J. (as he then was) explained the concept of litigation [21] Litigation privilege is a common law rule that gives rise to immunity......
Get Started for Free
5 cases
-
R c. Emery Martin
...in which the privilege is asserted (see Redhead Equipment v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SKCA 115; R. v. Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383). 102.      Although the defence claims the contrary, in R. v. Campbell, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565, the Supreme Court confirmed th......
-
SASKATCHEWAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION v. SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION
...In R v Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383, Kalmakoff J. (as he then was) explained the concept of litigation [21]      Litigation privilege is a common law rule that gives rise to immunity from disclosure of documents and communications whose dominant purpose is ......
-
R c. Emery Martin
...est revendiqué (voir Redhead Equipment Equipment v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SKCA 115) R. v. Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383).  102.      Quoique la défense prétend le contraire, dans l’affaire R c. Campbell, [1999] 1 R.C.S. 565, l......
-
BRITTO v.UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
...dealt with privilege, particularly litigation privilege (and the distinction from solicitor-client privilege) in R v Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383. In doing so he reviewed the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on privilege in Lizotte v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] ......
Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
-
Internal Investigations And Disclosure Of Sensitive Information: What Protections Can Legal Privileges Offer?
...(FCA); Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2013 FCA 104, 28; R. v Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383 (Husky), 20; R. (Canada) c. Groupe SNC-Lavalin inc., 2016 QCCS 4 Singh v. Edmonton (City), [1994] A.J. No. 894; Manah v. Edmonton Northlands......
1 books & journal articles
-
THE TROUBLE WITH WIGMORE: A NEW APPROACH TO IMPLIED WAIVER OF SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
...(84) See McMahon v Harper, 2017 BCSC 2328 at para 166; R v Bruce Power Inc, 2005 CarswellOnt 12052 (CJ) at para 40; R v Husky Oil Inc, 2017 SKQB 383 at para 40. The opposing party should not be required to show the likely impact of the privileged evidence. In many cases, that would require ......
