Skip to main content

Tag: Rule 7

ICBC Litigation Privilege Claim Fails Due to "Investigative Stage" Finding

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized.

Further to my previous article on this topic, reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing the circumstances when a defence litigation privilege claim will fail due to records being created during ICBC’s “investigative stage” following a collision.
In last week’s case (Bako v. Gray) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant listed several documents as privileged.  These included an ICBC adjuster’s notes and further the notes of an independent adjuster hired by ICBC.  The Plaintiff brought an application to produce these records.  The Defendant refused arguing these records were subject to litigation privilege and that they were created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation.
Master Caldwell rejected this argument finding the records were more likely created during ICBC’s investigative stage.  In ordering production of the records the Court provided the following reasons:
[5] In Hamalainen (Committee of) v. Sippola, [1991] B.C.J. No. 3614 (C.A.) the Court of Appeal approved the reasoning and findings of Master Grist (as he then was) that there is an investigative stage and a litigation stage, that it was proper for the Master to determine when litigation became a reasonable prospect and further to determine when in the overall process the dominant purpose for the creation of documents became the preparation for or pursuit of litigation. The court further confirmed that in making that determination the Master was not bound or obliged to accept the adjusters’ opinions on those central issues to be decided…

[21] In his initial entry note in the defendant’s file on November 21, Mr. Matheson includes the following entries:

–

DICTATED MY NFA, AND A LETTER TO I/A DON UNRAU, WHOM I HAVE ASKED TO BE MY “LIASON” (sic) WITH ZOLTAN, SO LONG AS HE REMAINS UNREPRESENTED;

–

IN ANY EVENT, THE PLAN IS VERY SIMPLE. MONITOR ZOLTAN’S PROGRESS & OBTAIN UPDATED CLINICALS & REPORTED (sic) PERIODICALLY…AND HOPEFULLY, SETTLE HIM UNREPRESENTED SOMETIME BEFORE THE 2 YEAR LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBES. LOOKS LIKE ZOLTAN IS ASKING HIS GP TO REFER HIM TO DR. ROBINSON (RE: HIS HA’S)…I’LL BOOK A PRECAUTIONARY IME WITH DR. MICHAEL JONES, “JUST IN CASE”

–

I DON’T HAVE ANY CONCERNS RE:  CREDIBILITY, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN TO DATE.

[22] On November 25, 2008 Mr. Matheson made further notes to the file, including:

–

SO LONG AS MR BAKO REMAINS UNREPRESENTED, AND CONTINUES TO WORK, THE RISK EXPOSURE OF THIS FILE IS MODERATE.

–

I AM GOING TO RETAINED DON UNRAU, INDEPENDENT ADJUSTER, TO ACT AS MY LIAISON WITH THE PLAINTIFF.

–

I WILL SET UP A PRECAUTIONARY IME WITH DR MICHAEL JONES (NEUROLOGIST)

[23] These entries clearly indicate that as of late November 2008, Mr. Matheson’s focus was on information gathering and settlement, with both being done quickly and before Mr. Bako retained counsel; when litigation type issues did arise they were referred to as “precautionary” or “just in case”, neither of which is at all consistent with his sworn assertion that he “believed this matter would result in litigation” when he first received the file.

[24] Based on my review of the materials, it is of little import whether Ms. McIntosh or Mr. Matheson had charge of the files between November 10, 2008 and March 16, 2009, or for that matter, September 22, 2009 when the Writ was filed and sent for delivery to ICBC. Nothing in the materials supports Mr. Matheson’s assertion that he had a reasonable basis to determine and that he did determine that there was a reasonable prospect of litigation in this case.

[25] Save and except for references to reserves, the CWMS notes are ordered to be produced in unredacted form up to and including September 22, 2009.

[26] All references to the independent adjuster in November of 2008, centered on him simply being a “liaison” between Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bako, at least for so long as Mr. Bako remained unrepresented; the report is dated shortly after Mr. Bako did retain counsel. Again, I see no support for any conclusion other than that his involvement was related directly to Mr. Matheson’s stated intention to settle the file before Mr. Bako retained counsel. The report is ordered produced.

Insurance Policy Limits Relevant to Formal Settlement Offer Costs Analysis

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 7, BCSC Civil Rule 9.


In 2010 the BC Court of Appeal found that Judges could consider the existence of insurance when exercising costs discretion following a trial in which a formal settlement offer was made.  Last week reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, expanding on this principle finding that the limits of insurance coverage were equally applicable.
In last week’s case (Meghji v. Lee) the Plaintiff suffered brain trauma after being struck by a motorist while walking in a marked cross-walk in 2003.  At trial the motorist was found 90% at fault for the crash with the Ministry of Transportation shouldering the remaining 10% for designing the intersection with inadequate lighting.
Following trial the Plaintiff applied for double costs as the trial result exceeded a pre-trial formal settlement offer she made.   The Defendant wished to place information relating to his insurance policy limits before the Court before a costs decision was made.  In finding this was appropriate Mr. Justice Johnston provided the following reasons:

[6] Rule 7-1(4) reads:

(4)        Despite subrule (3), information concerning the insurance policy must not be disclosed to the court at trial unless it is relevant to an issue in the action.

[7] Subrule (3) requires a party to list in his or her list of documents insurance policies that, generally speaking, might be available to satisfy a judgment in whole or in part should the judgment be entered.

[8] Mr. Lee has responded by arguing that the trial is over (subject, of course, to an application to re-open prior to entry of judgment), and even if the trial is not at an end, his policy limits are now relevant to an issue in the action, being costs. That relevance can fall under one or more of the considerations set out in Rule 9?1(6).

[9] Counsel for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MoTH) disagrees as to the relevance of Mr. Lee’s insurance limits.

[10] I have concluded that the amount of Mr. Lee’s automobile liability insurance limits is relevant to the considerations set out in Rule 9-1(6). The amount of available insurance could affect the question whether the offer was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, and it could also affect the weighing of the relative financial circumstances of the parties.

[11] Counsel for Mr. Lee is authorized and directed to disclose the amount of Mr. Lee’s liability insurance limits operative at the time of the accident.

Document Production Obligations and the New Supreme Court Civil Rules

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized. 160 Comments on Document Production Obligations and the New Supreme Court Civil Rules


One of the goals of the New Rules of Court was to make litigation “just, speedy and inexpensive” and to simplify the process.  One area where the Rules have fallen short of this goal is the area of pre-trial document disclosure obligations.  Under the former Rules parties were bound by one consistent (but arguably over-broad) test.  Now parties are met with a host of obligations which were well summarized in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry.
In this week’s case (Edwards v. Ganzer) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  A dispute arose with respect the Plaintiff’s disclosure obligations.  In resolving the dispute Master Bouck provided the following reasons summarizing the legal disclosure obligations (and dispute process) under Rule 7-1:

[39] Biehl v. Strang is the seminal decision of Punnett J. addressing (mostly) the primary obligation of document disclosure under Rule 7-1(1) (a). The remaining decisions touch upon, if not directly address, the document disclosure obligations under both Rule 7-1(1)(a) and Rule 7-1(14) of the SCCR.

[40] In addition, Master Baker has recently discussed the application of Rule 7-1 in Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corp., 2011 BCSC 1740.

[41] I understand the principles outlined in these various decisions, together with the applicable Rules, to be as follows:

a. The initial production obligation under Rule 7-1 (1) (a) (i) is limited to what is required to prove or disprove a material fact: Biehl v. Strang at para. 14;

b.  Rule 7-1(10) allows the opposing party to issue a written demand requiring the listing party to amend the original list and produce documents that should have been disclosed under Rule 7-1(1)(a)(i);

c.  In addition, Rule 7-1(11) allows the opposing party to issue a written demand requiring the listing party to amend the list and produce documents which ought to be disclosed under a test “close to” that set out in Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Company (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 at 63, (the “Guano test”): Global Pacific at para. 9;

d.  The distinction between the two types of disclosure provided for under Rule 7-1 is stated in Global Pacific as follows:

The question is whether a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the document either to advance his own case or damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, or if it may have either of those two consequences. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the initial disclosure under Rule 7-1(1) relates to a materiality requirement, but that a party can apply to the court, as the defendant did here, for broader disclosure pursuant to Rule 7-1(14).

(my emphasis.)

Para. 9

e.  Both the demand by the requesting party and the response of the opposing party should be set out in writing addressing the terms and criteria used in Rule 7-1. Whether the demand and response provide sufficient particularity is a matter of the court’s discretion;

f.  If an application is brought under Rule 7-1(13) for the listing or production of  documents, the court may either order compliance with the demand, excuse full compliance, or order partial compliance: Rule 7-1(14);

g.  The objectives of the SCCR, including proportionality, may be taken into account by the court when exercising its discretion under Rule 7-1(14). The proportionality rule can be applied to either expand or restrict the required production of documents: Global Pacific citing Whitcombe v. Avec Insurance Managers Inc., 2011 BCSC 204.

[42] Interestingly, a party may be excused from compliance with Rule 7-1(1) generally, but the court is not given the specific power to order compliance with a demand made for the listing and production of the so-called “materiality” documents. Rule 7-1(14) only specifically allows for an order requiring compliance with a broader disclosure demand under Rule 7-1(11): Global Pacific; Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corp. Whether this distinction is an oversight or intentional is difficult to say. It might well be the former, given that Rule 7-1(13) contemplates a compliance order by the court if a demand for the “material” documents is issued. The distinction is more fully canvassed in Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corp. at para. 15.

Late DME Application Dismissed; Responsive Exam Limitations Discussed

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.

Helpful reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dismissing a defence application to have a Plaintiff assessed by a neurosurgeon.  In short the Court found the application was brought too late in the claim and that there was insufficient evidence to justify a physical exam for a truly ‘responsive‘ medical report.
In the recent case (Dhaliwal v. Owens) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision.  The injuries included low back pain.  Surgery was anticipated but as time went on the Plaintiff experienced some symptom improvement and surgery became less likely.
In the course of the lawsuit the Defendants put the matter into fast track litigation (Rule 15).  They failed to obtain a medical report in a timely fashion.  When they finally did apply the 84 day service deadline set out in Rule 11-6(3) had come and gone.  The Defendants argued that they needed the report for responsive purposes and further that the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s anticipated surgery amounted to a change of circumstances justifying the late application.   Master Keighley rejected both of these arguments and dismissed the application.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:
[7]  Now, I had indicated earlier that it is likely that had this matter come to light a year ago, this application would not have been before me today.  What causes the problem is Rule 11-6(3) which requires that an expert report, in general terms, be delivered at least 84 days prior to the scheduled trial date.  The 84th day, I am told by counsel who have done the arithmetic, passed…almost a couple of weeks ago…
[14]  Now, this is not a situation, and we do sometimes see it, where the physician has either directly or indirectly provided evidence with respect to the necessity of a physical examination of a party.  There is nothing before me in the material to explain why a physical examination is required in this case other than the statements from the paralegal that I have referred to.
[15]  In the case of Wright v. Brauer, a decision of Mr. Justice Savage reported as 2010 BCSC 1282, Justice Savage considering similar circumstances said at paragraph 22
“In my opinion, the bare assertion reported to a legal assistant in this case is insufficient to support an order under Rule 7-6(1) that the plaintiff attend the Examination, when the defendants are limited to providing response reports under Rule 11-6(4)”
Justice Savage dismissed the application and is reference to Rule 11-6(4) harks back to his remarks at paragraph 12 of that decision where he said:

“Rule 11-6(4) was enacted to fill a lacuna in the Rules.  Under the former Rules, Rule 40A permitted parties to call expert evidence in reply without notice at trial.  In order for such evidence to be admitted, however, it had to be truly responsive to the expert evidence of a witness called by the opposing party.”

He noted that in the case before him, the defendants were, as here, limited by the Rule to what referred to as Justice Williamson in the case of Kelly v. Kelly (1995), 20 BCLR (3d) 232 “truly responsive rebuttal evidence” by virtue of the provisions of Rule 11-6.
[16]  Similarly, Mr. Justice Cullen in the case of Ludecke v. Hillman, 2010 BCSC 1538, considered an appeal from a master’s order which has allowed an examination to provide “truly responsive” evidence.  Justice Cullen upheld the master’s order determining that the necessary evidentiary foundation for the examination was found in the material before him.  In reaching that conclusion, he said:
“To reach the requisite threshold under Rule 11-6(4) the applicant must establish a basis of necessity for the examination to properly respond to the expert witness whose report is served under subrule (3) by the other party.”
[17]  The plaintiff’s injuries, it seems to me, have not really changed in this case.  She has more or less since the outset complained of low back pain, low back problems.  What has changed, if anything, in recent months is the decision of the medical practitioners treating her with regard to the advisability of surgery.  It appears that they have decided for the meantime that surgery is the less desirable option.  Notwithstanding that decision, the plaintiff continues to suffer pain to the extent that she remains, apparently, unable to work.  There has been ample time int his litigation, even before this change in the plaintiff’s circumstances, for the defence to seek and obtain evidence from a neurosurgeon or other specialist with respect to her condition.  Although the provisions of Rule 7-6 and its predecessor Rule were enacted to attempt to affect a level playing field between the parties with respect to medical evidence, I do not see that the defence will be prejudiced by being restricted to an opportunity to have Dr. Turnbull or another practitioner of their choice examine the available evidence and render an opinion at trial as to the appropriate treatment of the plaintiff’s injuries.  Overall, of course, I have been considering the issue of proportionality and in the particularly refined context of an application brought in a case governed by Rule 15-1.
[18]  The application is dismissed.
As of today this case is unreported but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy of the reasons for judgement to anyone who contacts me and requests these.

Defence Psychatric Exam Request Dismissed for Being Brought Too Late

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released last month dismissing an ICBC request to have a Plaintiff examined by a psychiatrist finding that the application was brought too late in the litigation and would unfairly balance the playing field should the Plaintiff need to respond to the examination.
In last month’s case (De Corde v. De Corde) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  She alleged physical injuries, a head injury and also “emotional distress“.
In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff agreed to be assessed by three physicians chosen by the Defendant (or their insurer ICBC).  Specifically a general practitioner, a neurologist and an orthopaedic surgeon.  The Defendant brought an application for the Plaintiff to also be assessed by a psychiatrist.  The application was brought with just barely sufficient time to have a report generated to comply with the time lines set out in the Rules of Court.
Master Bouck dismissed the application finding the medical playing field was already balanced and an additional report by a psychiatrist served on the cusp of the deadline set by the Rules of Court would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[37] The overriding principle is that an independent medical examination ought to be permitted if necessary to ensure reasonable equality between the parties in their preparations for trial.

[38] In this case, there are at least two considerations that compelled the dismissal of the application.

[39] First, there is no basis to suggest that the defendant is at a disadvantage in terms of evidence.

[40] Second, the application is brought so close to trial that the plaintiff might be prejudiced (by the adjournment of the trial) if the order was granted.

[41] This is not a case where a new diagnosis or symptom has arisen since the last independent medical examination. Indeed, much of the information that is relied on by defence in this application was in that party’s possession before the plaintiff attended the examinations by Drs. Wahl and Moll.

[42] The plaintiff’s mental health is commented upon in all of the reports presented to the court. None of the various medical professionals have recommended psychiatric treatment or diagnosis. It is appreciated that the diagnosis of the plaintiff’s symptoms differs as between these medical professionals. However, regardless of the diagnosis, all of these professionals suggest a treatment plan. That plan ranges from simple reassurance to medication to counselling to future neuropsychological reassessments…

[45] In short, there is simply no basis to suggest that the evidence presented to date requires a psychiatric opinion in order to “level the playing field”. Experts on both side of this case make certain treatment recommendations that will probably lead to some resolution of the plaintiff’s mental health symptoms. Whether the plaintiff follows those recommendations goes to the question of mitigation.

[46] Another important factor to consider is the timeliness of the defendant’s request, particularly when the opinions of the three defence experts (let alone those of the plaintiff) have been known for several months.

[47] I accept the submission that given the type of specialist involved, the plaintiff would have been hard pressed to answer Dr. Solomon’s opinion in time for trial. Thus, the plaintiff may be compelled to seek an adjournment of the trial which is scheduled to occur nearly five years after the accident. Such a result would hardly be in keeping with a speedy resolution to the claim: Rule1-3.

[48] In considering the question of prejudice, I presumed that Dr. Solomons would be able to comply with the 84-day deadline. But that deadline is not really the issue. It is the deadlines that the plaintiff must meet that leads to the possible prejudice.

[49] The plaintiff need only demonstrate that an adjournment of the trial is a possibility: Critchley v. McDiarmid, 2009 BCSC 134 at paras. 21 and 22…

[62] Given the timelines that must be met under SCCR together with the common acknowledgment that psychiatric assessments are not so easily obtained on short notice, there appeared to be a real possibility that the trial would be adjourned to allow the plaintiff to address the defence’ s new expert evidence.

[63] Thus, an order requiring the plaintiff’s attendance at a psychiatric independent examination would result in an inequality of evidence favouring the defence. I have already made the same finding in the case at bar.

ICBC Ordered to Share Witness Statement With Plaintiff

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dealing with document production requests in an ICBC Claim.
In this week’s case (Polianskaia v. Melanson) the Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother.  She was involved in a crash with the Defendants vehicle which apparently “failed to yield the right of way to the Plaintiff’s vehicle“.  The Plaintiff was injured and sued for damages.
Following the collision the Plaintiff’s mother (who was not a defendant in the lawsuit) “signed a written statement prepared by a representative of ICBC“.  The Defendant did not disclose this document in their list of documents.  The Plaintiff brought an application to compel production.  The Court granted this application and provided the following reasons:

[32] This second aspect of the plaintiff’s application is more straightforward.

[33] There is no evidence before the court which suggests that ICBC might have a statement from the plaintiff herself. The evidence addresses only the possible existence of statements made to ICBC by each of the plaintiff’s parents.

[34] The plaintiff’s mother deposes to having signed a written statement prepared by a representative of ICBC. Through defence counsel’s correspondence, the existence of such a statement is denied. The correspondence is not sworn evidence of either indirect or direct knowledge of the existence of this statement. In those circumstances, the court has no reliable evidence to weigh against the contrary evidence of the plaintiff’s mother. In the absence of such evidence, the order will go that ICBC is to produce to the plaintiff any written statement in its possession or control signed by Elvira Polianskaia.

ICBC Claims and Proper Objections to Examination For Discovery Questions

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 130 Comments on ICBC Claims and Proper Objections to Examination For Discovery Questions

In one of the more in-depth judicial discussions of examinations for discovery in the context of a personal injury claims, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing the scope of proper objections at a Plaintiff’s examination.
In today’s case (Nwachukwu v. Ferreira) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff attended three examinations for discovery.  The Plaintiff’s lawyer raised numerous objections during these and the discoveries were ultimately cut short.  The Defendant brought an application directing the Plaintiff to answer the questions which were objected to and further for permission to conduct a lengthier examination for discovery pursuant to Rule 7-2(2).
Mr. Justice Willcock granted the application finding there was “significant obstruction” at the previous discoveries.  In doing so the Court provided the following helpful comments about the scope of discovery and of common objections:

[32] The scope of examination for discovery has recently been canvassed by this court in Kendall v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2010 BCSC 1556; More Marine Ltd. v. Shearwater Marine Ltd., 2011 BCSC 166; and Day v. Hume, 2009 BCSC 587.  In those cases, the court reiterated the following principles:  the language of Rule 7-2(18) is identical to the former Rule 27(22) and the scope of examination for discovery has remained unchanged and is very broad.  Rigid limitations rigidly applied can destroy the right to a proper examination for discovery.  Useful or effective cross-examination would be impossible if counsel could only ask such questions as plainly revealed their purpose.  An examination for discovery is in the nature of cross-examination.  Counsel for the party being examined should not interfere except where it is clearly necessary to resolve ambiguity in a question or to prevent injustice.

[33] The time limit established by Rule 7-2(2) creates a greater obligation on counsel for the party being examined to avoid unduly objecting or interfering in a way that wastes the time available.  A largely hands-off approach to examinations for discovery, except in the clearest of circumstances, is in accord with the object of the Rules of Court, particularly the newly stated object of proportionality.  Allowing wide-ranging cross-examination on examination for discovery is far more cost effective than a practice that encourages objections which will undoubtedly result in subsequent chambers applications to require judges or masters to rule on the objections.  It is far more efficient for counsel for the examinee to raise objections to the admissibility of evidence at trial rather than on examination for discovery.  Where intervention is appropriate, the proper conduct of counsel is to state the objection to the form of a question and the reasons for the objection, but it is not appropriate to make comments, suggestions or criticism.

Applicable Law

[34] Many of the specific objections in issue are addressed in an article by John Shields and Howard Shapray published in The Advocate, Vol. 68, pt. 5 (September 2010) at page 671, referred to by Mr. Markham-Zantvoort in argument.

(a) Relevance

[35] Counsel objects to many questions on the grounds that they are not relevant.  In addressing these objections, I proceed from the proposition that counsel should have broad discretion to frame appropriate questions for the examination of the plaintiff, respecting the principles described in the cases to which I have referred.

(b) Confusion

[36] Counsel objects to many questions on the grounds that he finds them confusing.  In Cominco Ltd. v. Westinghouse Canada Limited (1979), 11 B.C.L.R. 142 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal at para. 19 held:

If a question is difficult to answer, the witness can say so and can be cross-examined about the difficulty. It is for the witness, not counsel, to deal with that.  Difficulty in answering does not exclude a whole area. It excludes specific questions.  No area of fact is closed on the ground that to enter it would “open the floodgates”.

(c) Repetition

[37] Counsel objects to questions he considers repetitive.  As Shields and Shapray note, “asked and answered” is not an appropriate objection in Canada.  Madam Justice Boyd in Rec Holdings Co. v. Peat Marwick Thorne Holdings, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1964 (S.C.), held at para. 9:

It is trite law that an examination for discovery is in the nature of a cross-examination.  While there will be situations in which repeating the same allowable question over and over on cross-examination may amount to intimidation, the Court must be slow to interfere where that tactic is used relatively sparingly and particularly in circumstances in which there are good grounds for the cross-examiner’s belief the witness may be falsifying his evidence.

(d) Inadequate Foundation

[38] Shields and Shapray say there is no requirement that a foundation be laid for a question.  In Cominco, the court noted at para. 632:

The objection is that no foundation was laid for the questions.  That suggestion does not appear to have been made at the time and I think that, if one objects, one should say why.  Presuming that this objection can now be made, I merely say that I know of no requirement that a foundation be laid.  None was cited to us.  Those questions should have been answered by the witness without interruption by counsel.

(e) Compound Questions

[39] Counsel routinely objected to questions that he considered to be compounded questions.  Shields and Shapray say, properly in my view, that objection to the form of question should be used sparingly.

(f) Privelege

[40] Counsel objected, at the most recent examination, when the plaintiff was asked what he alleges or says in relation to the claim.  The plaintiff cannot be asked what counsel told him about his claim or how the case will be framed at trial.  He may not be asked how much he will say he has lost, if the answer requires disclosure of an opinion obtained by the solicitor.  Question 1152 on the examination for discovery seems to seek such information.

[41] The witness cannot be asked to disclose how the facts having assembled, weighed or analysed by counsel.  That is what was offensive in the general requests considered by the court inTriathlon Ltd. v. Kirkpatrick, 2006 BCSC 890.  The questions asked in that case were held to offend the description of the privilege afforded to the solicitor’s brief in Hodgkinson v. Simms(1988), 33 B.C.L.R. (2d) 129 (C.A.).  It was the manner of getting at the work product by asking what facts had been assembled by counsel or what facts would be relied upon, rather than by asking about specific facts, that was objectionable.  The manner in which facts have been marshalled is a question going to trial strategy.  It is for that reason that I expect that counsel have included in the book of authorities Blue Line Hockey Acquisition Co., Inc. v. Orca Bay Hockey Limited Partnership, 2007 BCSC 143, although no express reference was made to it in oral submissions.  In that case, questions were held to be objectionable because of what was being sought: conclusions reached by counsel, rather than the evidence of the witness.

[42] Questions that intrude upon privilege are generally objectionable.  That is expressly reflected in Rule 7-2(18).  Care should be taken to protect the solicitor/client relationship.

Court Can't "Ride Roughshod" Over Solicitor's Brief Privilege At a Case Planning Conference

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 5, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure, Uncategorized. 64 Comments on Court Can't "Ride Roughshod" Over Solicitor's Brief Privilege At a Case Planning Conference


Reasons for judgement were recently brought to my attention discussing the scope of powers of the Court at Case Planning Conferences. Specifically the Court found that Rule 5-3 does not provide the power to over-ride common law principles of privilege.
In the recent case (Galvon v. Hopkins) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision. She sued for damages. As the lawsuit progressed the Plaintiff did not provide any expert medico-legal evidence to the Defendant.
This concerned the Defendant who brought a Case Planning Conference and obtained an order requiring the Plaintiff to “notify counsel for the defendant of the name of the neurologist with whom the appointment had been made and the date of the appointment, and secondly, that the parties were to provide opposing counsel with written notice forthwith upon any appointment being set for the plaintiff with medical experts, such notice to include the name of the expert, the expertise of the expert, and the date of the appointment“.
The Plaintiff appealed arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make such orders under the Rules of Court. Madam Justice Kloegman agreed and allowed the appeal. In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:
21. I agree with counsel for the plaintiff’s submission that Rule 5-3 cannot be read as to allow the Case Planning Conference Judge or Master to disregard the common law principle of privilege.
22. In my view, Master Bouck was fixated upon settlement of the litigation; always a commendable and important goal of a case planning conference, but not at the cost of ignoring the boundaries of her jurisdiction. It may well be that such information could have been exchanged at a settlement conference, which is a voluntary and without prejudice process, but it should not be mandated as part of trial preparation.
23. …She did not appear to consider that the object of the Rules to avoid trial by ambush only apply to evidence that would be used at trial, not to expert advice received through consultation.
24. By requiring the plaintiff to disclose the very fact of her attendance before a medical expert, and run the risk of an adverse inference if she did not call the expert at trial, the master was also interfering with the plaintiff’s right to elect which witnesses to call. Such interference is not sanctioned, or warranted, I might add, by our Supreme Court Rules.
25. Having concluded that our Rules do not grant the presider at a case planning conference the power to make the orders made by Master Bouck, it follows that she did not have the jurisdiciton to do so.
26. The appeal is allowed and Master Bouck’s orders will be set aside.

Social Media and Computer Hard Drive Requests "A fishing expedition…without the appropriate bait"

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 7, ICBC Privacy Issues, Uncategorized. 56 Comments on Social Media and Computer Hard Drive Requests "A fishing expedition…without the appropriate bait"


Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dismissing a defendant application requesting the production of a Plaintiff’s Facebook postings, Twitter postings, Computer Hard Drive and Iphone.
Today’s case (Dosanjh v. Leblanc and St. Paul’s Hospital) involved allegations of medical malpractice.  The plaintiff said she suffered “cognitive impairment that has affected her thinking process“.  She sued for damages.  The Defendants brought an application seeking that the Plaintiff produce her private social media account information and computer hard-drive data arguing that this information would be relevant to the claimed damages.  Master Taylor dismissed the application finding such a broad application, even in the face of alleged cognitive injuries, was “a classic fishing expedition, but without the appropriate bait.“.  Master Taylor provided the following reasons:

[28] The defendant has not indicated the material fact or facts which it believes can be proved by searching the plaintiff’s personal computer and her social media sites.  Rather, the defendant merely says that health, enjoyment of life and employability are in issue.  Surely more is or should be required to meet the test of Rule 7-1(1)(a)(i) than just saying a particular matter is in issue in order to infringe on a litigant’s privacy.

[29] To be able to obtain a litigant’s private thoughts and feelings as expressed to friends or family members after the fact is, in my view, similar to a party intercepting private communications of another party.

[30] I am unable to envisage any rational justification for breaching the privacy rights of an individual in civil proceedings simply because it is alleged that the individual’s general health, enjoyment of life and employability are directly at issue.  Merely because a record may be made of the communication shouldn’t make it any different than a private telephone conversation.  If not, surely applications in civil proceedings for recordings of private communications can’t be far behind…

[33] I am satisfied that the defendant’s application is entirely too broad and lacks the focus required by Rule 7-1(1)(a)(i).  In fact, I am more inclined to call this application a classic fishing expedition, but without the appropriate bait.  I observe as well that the order made by the court in Bishop, supra, was focussed on the times the plaintiff spent on his Facebook account on his computer, and did not give the defendant cart blanche to troll through the plaintiff’s correspondence as is sought in the application before me.

Plaintiff Expert Witness Allowed to Attend Defendant Examination for Discovery

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 1, BCSC Civil Rule 7, Civil Procedure.


The law in BC generally permits only parties and their lawyers to attend examinations for discovery.  In limited circumstances, however, the Court can permit others to attend a discovery relying on the BC Supreme Court’s ‘inherent jurisdiction‘.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this.
In this week’s case (Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corporation) the Plaintiff suffered “very serious personal injury” in a motorcycle accident.  He sued the manufacturer and scheduled an examination for discovery of an engineer employed with the Defendant.  The Plaintiff argued that his expert should be allowed to attend as the claim includes “matters requiring an understanding of technical concepts relating to the design, manufacture, and testing of motorcycles and sidecars“.
The Defendant opposed arguing this would add unnecessary time and expense to the Court Proceedings.  Mr. Justice Grauer disagreed with the Defendant and allowed the expert to attend.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:

[6] The Rules do not specifically address this issue, but it has certainly been the practice in this province that only the parties and their legal representatives may attend examinations for discovery in the absence of consent or an order of the court.

[7] In Ian Macdonald Library Services Ltd. v. P.Z. Resort Systems Inc. (1985), 67 B.C.L.R. 269, Madam Justice Southin, then of this Court, considered a similar application and said this:

[6]        I think the simple and sensible answer to this question is that counsel should be able to do so whenever the nature of the case is such that counsel cannot reasonably be expected to conduct a full and proper cross-examination of the witness being discovered without expert assistance.

[7]        Whether in any given case such expert assistance is necessary will depend, among other things, on:

1.         The issues in the action;

2.         The level of technical and scientific knowledge which can reasonably be expected of counsel generally at any given time;

3.         The extent of inconvenience to which the parties may be put if counsel must conduct part of an examination then adjourn it, consult with an expert and conduct the rest of it perhaps on some other occasion.

…

[9] I find that the issues in this case raise a level of technical and scientific knowledge beyond what can reasonably be expected of counsel generally.  While counsel normally are very adept at quickly, if temporarily, acquiring specialized knowledge relevant to their cases, it would be unwise I think for the court to second-guess the judgment of counsel as to what is required for the full and fair examination of an opposite party who possesses specialized expertise in this type of case.  Given the nature of the issues, I see nothing that strikes me as unreasonable about the request.

[10] What must be considered however is whether accommodating the request of examining counsel would result in prejudice to the party being examined.  If so, then the court must attempt to weigh that prejudice against the prejudice to the examining party of being deprived of expert assistance.

[11] In this case, no prejudice has been put forward by Harley-Davidson other than the concerns of disruption, increased expense, and extended time.  As to disruption, both counsel are experienced and I see no reason to suppose that this concern is likely to materialize in any meaningful way.  As to increased expense, the evidence does not satisfy me that such a result is likely.  Similarly, the time is at least as likely to be shortened as it is to be extended.

[12] Counsel for the defendant suggests that this will lead us down a slippery slope to a result where counsel will always request expert assistance at examinations for discovery in technical cases.  I very much doubt that that will follow, but in any event each case will be dealt with on its individual circumstances.  Where the examining party can establish the need, and the party being examined cannot establish prejudice, there is no reason to worry.  It did not worry Madam Justice Southin.

[13] As to the concept of proportionality, it seems to me that granting the relief requested is more likely to promote than inhibit the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this proceeding on its merits taking into account the amount involved, the complexity of the issues and the importance of conducting a full, fair and informed examination for discovery.  Accordingly, leave is granted as requested.