R. v. HUSKY ENERGY INC., 2017 SKQB 383
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Judge | KALMAKOFF J. |
| Citation | 2017 SKQB 383 |
| Docket Number | QBG 1751 of 2017 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
| Date | 20 December 2017 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
7 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 ......
-
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......
-
R c. Emery Martin, 2021 NBBR 67
...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......
-
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......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
-
R c. Emery Martin, 2021 NBBR 67
...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......
-
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 ......
-
BRITTO v.UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN, 2018 SKQB 92
...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] ......
Request a trial to view additional results
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 ......