Raymond et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al., (1976) 2 A.R. 93 (TD)

JudgeMacDonald, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateDecember 22, 1976
Citations(1976), 2 A.R. 93 (TD)

Raymond v. Cdn. Pacific Ltd. (1976), 2 A.R. 93 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Raymond et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al.

Indexed As: Raymond et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al.

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

MacDonald, J.

December 22, 1976.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Practice - Topic 4578

Discovery - Production of documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant railway arising out of a level crossing collision - The railway claimed privilege respecting statements and reports prepared by the railway on the ground that they were prepared in anticipation of litigation - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, upheld the railway's objection and dismissed the plaintiff's application for an order for production of the documents.

Cases Noticed:

Maygard v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [1929] 2 W.W.R. 27, folld. [para. 3].

Hopper, [1925] P. 52; 94 L.J.P. 45; 41 T.L.R. 189, folld. [para. 3].

Counsel:

J.A.S. McDonald, Q.C., for the plain tiffs;

D.B. Hodges, for the defendants.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Turgeon v. Edmonton and Ewald, (1986) 72 A.R. 366 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 7 Febrero 1986
    ...Guelph Engineering Company et al., [1984] 3 W.W.R. 314; 50 A.R. 199, appld. [para. 4]. Raymond et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. (1976), 2 A.R. 93, folld. [para. Maygard v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [1929] 2 W.W.R. 27, consd. [para. 12]. Hopper (No. 13), The, [1925] P. 52; 94 L......
1 cases
  • Turgeon v. Edmonton and Ewald, (1986) 72 A.R. 366 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 7 Febrero 1986
    ...Guelph Engineering Company et al., [1984] 3 W.W.R. 314; 50 A.R. 199, appld. [para. 4]. Raymond et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. (1976), 2 A.R. 93, folld. [para. Maygard v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [1929] 2 W.W.R. 27, consd. [para. 12]. Hopper (No. 13), The, [1925] P. 52; 94 L......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT