Turgeon v. Edmonton and Ewald, (1986) 72 A.R. 366 (QB)

• Judge: Berger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 07, 1986
• Citations: (1986), 72 A.R. 366 (QB)

Turgeon v. Edmonton (1986), 72 A.R. 366 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Turgeon v. Edmonton and Ewald

Indexed As: Turgeon v. Edmonton and Ewald

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Berger, J.

February 7, 1986.

Summary:

The plaintiff applied for an order compelling production of certain investigative reports and statements obtained by the defendant after an accident.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 4578

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared in contemplation of litigation - After an accident involving an Edmonton city bus, employees of Edmonton filed accident reports under a written city policy requiring incident reports - The policy expressly stated that such reports were for the purpose of litigation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed an application for an order that the city produce the reports and held that they were privileged, because they were prepared in contemplation of litigation.

Cases Noticed:

Nova, an Alberta Corporation v. 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. 12].

Maygard v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, [1929] 2 W.W.R. 27, consd. [para. 12].

Hopper (No. 13), The, [1925] P. 52; 94 L.J.P. 45, consd. [para. 12].

Somerville Belkin Industries Ltd. v. Brocklesby Transport, Kingsway Freightlines Ltd. and Witty, [1985] 6 W.W.R. 85, appld. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 214(1) [para. 9].

Counsel:

D. Sulyma, Cummings, Andrews, Edmonton, Alberta, for the plaintiff;

J.M. Coutu, Edmonton, Alberta, for the defendants.

This case was heard in Edmonton, Alberta, before Berger, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 7, 1986: