More on BC Injury Claims and Litigation Privilege
Two decisions were released this week by the BC Supreme Court dealing with the issue of litigation privilege in BC personal injury lawsuits. The first case stressed the importance of lawyers properly identifying and listing documents, the second dealt with evidence gathered by an insurance company during the “investigative stage” following a motor vehicle collision.
In the first case (Craig v. Smith) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 motor vehicle collision. The Defendant claimed privilege over various documents and the Plaintiff brought a motion to produce these. The parties worked out many of their respective differences before the Court gave judgment but prior to resolving the issues Master Caldwell gave the following guidance stressing the importance of lawyers properly disclosing relevant documents:
 It is counsel’s duty to determine relevance and claims of privilege; see G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R Grace & Co.,  B.C.J. No. 2387. There is an obligation to describe documents in sufficient detail to enable other parties to assess the validity of the claim of litigation privilege; see Hetherington v. Loo et al, 2007 BCSC 129 and Nanaimo Shipyard Ltd. v. Keith et al, 2007 BCSC 9. The dominant purpose test is still the appropriate test to be applied in determining litigation privilege but is “more compatible with the contemporary trend favouring increased …mutual and reciprocal disclosure which is the hallmark of the judicial process”; see Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39. This is all well settled law.
In the second case (Pshelensky v. Dion) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision. Within a week of the crash the Plaintiff hired a personal injury lawyer to represent her. Shortly after this the Defendant’s insurance company obtained a statement from the Defendant and witnesses to the crash. After the lawsuit started the Defendant refused to produce a copy of the statement arguing that since the Plaintiff hired a lawyer a lawsuit was reasonably contemplated when the statements were taken and they were protected by “litigation privilege“.
Master Taylor disagreed and ordered that the Defendant produce the statements. In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:
 I take the view that the two statements taken from the driver and passenger of the defendant motor vehicle were essentially taken to determine the cause of the accident and, of course, to determine who might be at fault.
 In my view the defendants rely upon the fact that the plaintiff retained counsel early on in these proceedings or shortly after the accident to suggest that litigation was contemplated. I do not agree with this proposition for in my view it was far too early in the proceedings to make a final determination as to whether or not litigation would be inevitable.
 I further take the view that the statements taken from Badr and Dion were so close to the time of the accident that they were very early in the continuum before the dominant purpose became one of furthering the course of litigation. Accordingly I find that both statements are not privileged and should be released to the plaintiff applicant.
This is just one in a series of recent cases making it clear that when an insurance company is investigating why a crash happened it will be very difficult to keep statements from the Plaintiff in a subsequent lawsuit. You can click here to read my archived posts further dealing with the issue of litigation privilege in the context of BC personal injury lawsuits.