Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada

Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2016-11-25
Neutral citation
2016 SCC 52
Report
[2016] 2 SCR 521
Case number
36373
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell
On appeal from
Quebec
Notes
SCC Case Information: 36373
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 521
Appeal heard: March 24, 2016
Judgment rendered: November 25, 2016
Docket: 36373
Between:
Karine Lizotte, in her capacity as assistant syndic
of the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages
Appellant
and
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and
Traders General Insurance Company
Respondents
- and -
Canadian Bar Association,
Advocates’ Society and Barreau du Québec
Interveners
Official English Translation
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 71)
Gascon J. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Côté and Brown JJ. concurring)
Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 521
Karine Lizotte, in her capacity as assistant syndic
of the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages Appellant
v.
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and
Traders General Insurance Company Respondents
and
Canadian Bar Association,
Advocates’ Society and
Barreau du Québec Interveners
Indexed as: Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada
2016 SCC 52
File No.: 36373.
2016: March 24; 2016: November 25.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Law of professions — Ethics — Powers of investigation of syndic — Production of documents — Litigation privilege — Inquiry by syndic of Chambre de l’assurance de dommages into conduct of claims adjuster — Whether statutory provision creating obligation to produce “any . . . document” at request of syndic can be interpreted as abrogating litigation privilege — Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services, CQLR, c. D‑9.2, s. 337.
In the course of an inquiry into a claims adjuster, the assistant syndic of the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages (the “syndic”) asked insurer A to send her a complete copy of its claim file with respect to one of its insured. The syndic based this request on s. 337 of the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services (“ADFPS”). In response, the insurer produced a number of documents, but explained that it had withheld some on the basis that they were covered either by solicitor-client privilege or by litigation privilege. The syndic responded to this refusal by filing a motion for a declaratory judgment.
At the hearing of the motion, the syndic conceded that solicitor-client privilege could be asserted against her and that the issue before the court was therefore limited to litigation privilege. She argued that s. 337 ADFPS was sufficient to lift the privilege, because it created an obligation to produce “any . . . document” concerning the activities of a representative whose professional conduct is being investigated by the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages. The Superior Court concluded that litigation privilege cannot be abrogated absent an express provision. The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that even though litigation privilege is distinguishable from solicitor-client privilege, it is, to the same extent, a fundamentally important principle that cannot be overridden without express language.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Litigation privilege is a common law rule that gives rise to an immunity from disclosure for documents and communications whose dominant purpose is preparation for litigation. This privilege has sometimes been confused with solicitor‑client privilege, both at common law and in Quebec law. However, since Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319, it has been settled law that solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege are distinct: the purpose of solicitor‑client privilege is to protect a relationship, while that of litigation privilege is to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial process; solicitor‑client privilege is permanent, whereas litigation privilege is temporary and lapses when the litigation ends; and, finally, litigation privilege applies to unrepresented parties and to non-confidential documents, and is not directed at communications between solicitors and clients as such.
The differences identified in Blank between solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege have been adopted in Quebec law. Thus, despite certain common characteristics, litigation privilege has not been absorbed into, and does not constitute a component or subcategory of, the institution of professional secrecy.
Although litigation privilege is distinguishable from solicitor‑client privilege, it is nevertheless a class privilege and gives rise to a presumption of inadmissibility for a class of communications, namely those whose dominant purpose is preparation for litigation. Thus, any document that meets the conditions for the application of litigation privilege will be protected by an immunity from disclosure unless the case is one to which one of the exceptions to that privilege applies.
Litigation privilege is subject to clearly defined exceptions, not to a case‑by‑case balancing test. In the context of privileges, the exercise of balancing competing interests is associated with case‑by‑case privileges, not class privileges. The exceptions that apply to solicitor‑client privilege are all applicable to litigation privilege. These include the exceptions relating to public safety, to the innocence of the accused and to criminal communications. They also include the exception recognized in Blank for evidence of the claimant party’s abuse of process or similar blameworthy conduct. Other exceptions may be identified in the future, but they will always be based on narrow classes that apply in specific circumstances.
Finally, litigation privilege can be asserted against third parties, including third party investigators who have a duty of confidentiality. It would not be appropriate to exclude third parties from the application of this privilege or to expose the privilege to the uncertainties of disciplinary and legal proceedings that could result in the disclosure of documents that would otherwise be protected. Any uncertainty in this regard could have a chilling effect on parties preparing for litigation, who may fear that documents otherwise covered by litigation privilege could be made public.
In this case, the litigation privilege invoked by the insurer can be asserted against the syndic, and none of the exceptions to its application justify lifting the privilege. Moreover, this privilege cannot be lifted by applying s. 337 ADFPS. There is a robust line of authority according to which a party should not be denied the right to claim litigation privilege without clear and explicit legislative language to that effect. It was the fundamental importance of that privilege that led the Court to require explicit language for its abrogation. There is no question that litigation privilege does not have the same status as solicitor‑client privilege, and it is less absolute than the latter. Nonetheless, like solicitor‑client privilege, litigation privilege is fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system and is central to the adversarial system that Quebec shares with the other provinces. The parties’ ability to confidently develop strategies knowing that they cannot be compelled to disclose them is essential to the effectiveness of the adversarial process. Litigation privilege cannot therefore be abrogated by inference, and clear, explicit and unequivocal language is required in order to lift it. However, s. 337 ADFPS, on which the syndic is relying, merely authorizes a request for the production of “any . . . document” without further precision. This is a general production provision that does not specifically indicate that the production must include records for which privilege is claimed. A provision that merely refers to the production of “any . . . document” does not contain sufficiently clear, explicit and unequivocal language to abrogate litigation privilege. It follows that the insurer was entitled to assert litigation privilege in this case and to refuse to provide the syndic with the documents that fall within the scope of that privilege.
Cases Cited
Applied: Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574; Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319; referred to: Foster Wheeler Power Co. v. Société intermunicipale de gestion et d’élimination des déchets (SIGED) inc., 2004 SCC 18, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 456; Lyell v. Kennedy (No. 2) (1883), 9 App. Cas. 81; Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27; Desjardins Assurances générales inc. v. Groupe Ledor inc., mutuelle d’assurances, 2014 QCCA 1501; Canada (Procureur général) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2014 QCCA 552; Informatique Côté, Coulombe inc. v. Groupe Son X Plus inc., 2012 QCCA 2262; Union canadienne (L’), compagnie d’assurance v. St‑Pierre, 2012 QCCA 433, [2012] R.J.Q. 340; Imperial Tobacco Canada ltée v. Létourneau, 2012 QCCA 2260; Société d’énergie de la Baie James v. Groupe Aecon ltée, 2011 QCCA 646; Fournier Avocats inc. v. Cinar Corp., 2010 QCCA 2278; R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 477; R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp., 2013 SCC 37, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 623; R. v. Basi, 2009 SCC 52, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 389; Compagnie d’assurances AIG du Canada v. Solmax International inc., 2016 QCCA 258; Axa Assurances inc. v. Pageau, 2009 QCCA 1494; Conceicao Farms Inc. v. Zeneca Corp. (2006), 83 O.R. (3d) 792; College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665, 23 C.P.R. (4th) 185; Apotex Fermentation Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1994), 95 Man. R. (2d) 186; R. v. Brouillette (1992), 78 C.C.C. (3d) 350; Opron Construction Co. v. Alberta (1989), 100 A.R. 58; R. v. Lanthier, 2008 CanLII 13797; Kennedy v. McKenzie (2005), 17 C.P.C. (6th) 229; R. v. Soomel, 2003 BCSC 140; General Accident Assurance Co. v. Chrusz (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 321; Brown v. Cape Breton (Regional Municipality), 2011 NSCA 32, 302 N.S.R. (2d) 84; Llewellyn v. Carter, 2008 PESCAD 12, 278 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 96; Davies v. American Home Assurance Co. (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 512; R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368; Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; R. v. Kea (2005), 27 M.V.R. (5th) 182; D’Anjou v. Lamontagne, 2014 QCCQ 11999; Rodriguez v. Woloszyn, 2013 ABQB 269, 554 A.R. 8; Aherne v. Chang, 2011 ONSC 3846, 337 D.L.R. (4th) 593; Guay v. Gesca ltée, 2013 QCCA 343, [2013] R.J.Q. 342; Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947); Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; Peacock v. Bell (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73, 85 E.R. 84; Bisaillon v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. McClure, 2001 SCC 14, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381; Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 197, 260 O.A.C. 125; Slocan Forest Products Ltd. v. Trapper Enterprises Ltd., 2010 BCSC 1494, 100 C.P.C. (6th) 70; TransAlta Corp. v. Market Surveillance Administrator, 2014 ABCA 196, 577 A.R. 32; Privacy Commissioner of Canada v. Air Canada, 2010 FC 429; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2010 FC 736; Louch v. Decicco, 2007 BCSC 393, 39 C.P.C. (6th) 8; Ward v. Pasternak, 2015 BCSC 1190.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A‑1, s. 23 .
Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services, CQLR, c. D‑9.2, ss. 284, 289, 312, 329, 337, 352, 353, 376.
Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12, s. 9.
Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C‑25.01, art. 11.
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, ss. 12 [repl. 2010, c. 23, s. 83], 12.1.
Professional Code, CQLR, c. C‑26, ss. 14.3, 60.4, 142, 192.
Authors Cited
Billingsley, Barbara. “‘Ingathered’ Records and the Scope of Litigation Privilege in Canada: Does Litigation Privilege Apply to Copies or Collections of Otherwise Unprivileged Documents?” (2014), 43 Adv. Q. 280.
Cardinal, Alain. “Quelques aspects modernes du secret professionnel de l’avocat” (1984), 44 R. du B. 237.
Driedger, Elmer A. Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983.
Halsbury’s Laws of Canada: Evidence, 2014 Reissue, contributed by Hamish C. Stewart. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2014.
Royer, Jean‑Claude, et Sophie Lavallée. La preuve civile, 4e éd. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 2008.
Sharpe, Robert J. “Claiming Privilege in the Discovery Process”, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada 1984 — Law in Transition: Evidence. Don Mills, Ont.: Richard De Boo, 1984, 163.
Sullivan, Ruth. Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2014.
Williams, Neil J. “Discovery of Civil Litigation Trial Preparation in Canada” (1980), 58 Can. Bar Rev. 1.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Bich, Gagnon and St‑Pierre JJ.A.), 2015 QCCA 152, [2015] AZ‑51145074, [2015] J.Q. no 383 (QL), 2015 CarswellQue 384 (WL Can.), setting aside in part a decision of Gagnon J., 2013 QCCS 6397, [2013] AZ‑51031246, [2013] J.Q. no 14254 (QL), 2013 CarswellQue 13283 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed.
Claude G. Leduc and Olivier Charbonneau‑Saulnier, for the appellant.
Éric Azran and Patrick Girard, for the respondents.
Mahmud Jamal, Alexandre Fallon and W. David Rankin, for the intervener the Canadian Bar Association.
Douglas C. Mitchell and Audrey Boctor, for the intervener the Advocates’ Society.
François LeBel, Jean‑Benoît Pouliot and Sylvie Champagne, for the intervener Barreau du Québec.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered by
Gascon J. —
I. Overview
[1] Litigation privilege protects against the compulsory disclosure of communications and documents whose dominant purpose is preparation for litigation. Although it differs from the professional secrecy of lawyers (solicitor‑client privilege) in several respects, the two concepts do overlap to some extent. Since Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 574, it has been settled law that any legislative provision capable of interfering with solicitor‑client privilege must be read narrowly and that a legislature may not abrogate that privilege by inference, but may only do so using clear, explicit and unequivocal language. The issue in this appeal is whether this principle also applies to litigation privilege.
[2] In the course of an inquiry into a claims adjuster, the appellant, the assistant syndic (the “syndic”) of the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages (the “Chamber”), asked an insurer, the respondent Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, to send her a complete copy of its claim file with respect to one of its insured. Aviva refused to do so on the basis that some of the requested documents were protected by litigation privilege. In response to this refusal, the syndic filed a motion for a declaratory judgment, arguing that the relevant statutory provision created an obligation to produce “any . . . document” concerning the activities of a representative whose professional conduct is being investigated by the Chamber, and that this was sufficient to lift the privilege. In the syndic’s opinion, litigation privilege can be distinguished from solicitor‑client privilege; it is less important and is not absolute, and should therefore be applied more flexibly.
[3] The Superior Court concluded that litigation privilege cannot be abrogated absent an express provision. The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that even though litigation privilege is distinguishable from solicitor‑client privilege, it is, to the same extent, a fundamentally important principle that cannot be overridden without express language.
[4] I would dismiss the appeal. Although there are differences between solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege, the latter is nonetheless a fundamental principle of the administration of justice that is central to the justice system both in Quebec and in the other provinces. It is a class privilege that exempts the communications and documents that fall within its scope from compulsory disclosure, except where one of the limited exceptions to non‑disclosure applies.
[5] The requirements established in Blood Tribe apply to litigation privilege. Given its importance, this privilege cannot be abrogated by inference and cannot be lifted absent a clear, explicit and unequivocal provision to that effect. Because the section at issue provides only for the production of “any . . . document” without further precision, it does not have the effect of abrogating the privilege. It follows that Aviva was entitled to assert litigation privilege in this case and to refuse to provide the syndic with the documents that fall within the scope of that privilege.
II. Background
[6] The Chamber is a self‑regulatory organization established by s. 284 of the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services, CQLR, c. D‑9.2 (“ADFPS”). It is responsible for overseeing the professional conduct of a number of representatives working in the insurance field, including claims adjusters, damage insurance agents and damage insurance brokers (ss. 289 and 312 ADFPS). In this regard, the Chamber has a role similar to that of a professional order governed by the Professional Code, CQLR, c. C‑26, although it is not such an order. Its “mission [is] to ensure the protection of the public by maintaining discipline among and supervising the training and ethics of its members” (s. 312 ADFPS). For this purpose, the syndic of the Chamber inquires into any offences under the ADFPS or its regulations (s. 329 ADFPS). She may bring a complaint against a representative before the Chamber’s discipline committee, and the complaint may result in a fine (ss. 352, 353 and 376 ADFPS).
[7] In July 2008, a fire damaged the residence of a person insured by Aviva. Aviva assigned one of its claims adjusters, M.B., to investigate the claim. The syndic of the Chamber later received information to the effect that M.B. had made certain errors in managing the file. On January 24, 2011, the syndic opened an inquiry with respect to M.B. In the course of that inquiry, a member of the syndic’s team sent Aviva a request for a [translation] “complete copy of [its] file, both physical and electronic, for this claim”, and for a list that would enable her “to identify the employees who worked on the file” (emphasis deleted). The syndic based this request on s. 337 ADFPS, which reads as follows:
337. Insurers, firms, independent partnerships and mutual fund dealers and scholarship plan dealers registered in accordance with Title V of the Securities Act (chapter V‑1.1) must, at the request of a syndic, forward any required document or information concerning the activities of a representative.
[8] In response, Aviva produced a number of documents, but explained that it had withheld some on the basis that they were covered either by solicitor‑client privilege or by litigation privilege. The syndic insisted, however, and made several subsequent requests for the complete claim file, explaining that she could not conduct her inquiry without it.
[9] On June 30, 2011, the insured person in question brought legal proceedings against Aviva to obtain compensation. While that action was still pending in court, the syndic applied in June 2012 for a declaratory judgment against Aviva in order to obtain the documents it sought. On June 26, 2013, Aviva and the insured person reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and on October 17, 2013, Aviva finally sent the syndic the entire file regarding the insured person’s claim.
[10] Although that settled the dispute between the parties with respect to the production of the required documents, the syndic nevertheless proceeded with her motion for a declaratory judgment. As agreed by the parties, that motion raised the following question:
[translation] The parties agree that at the time when the ChaD (Chambre de l’assurance de dommages) made its request to the defendant on January 24, 2011, some of the documents included in the claim file of the insured person N.F. were not produced by the defendant on the basis of litigation privilege or of professional secrecy (solicitor‑client privilege). Accordingly, was the defendant entitled to assert those privileges against the ChaD and to refuse on that basis to produce the documents covered by them?
[11] The Superior Court judge who heard the motion held that it raised a [translation] “genuine problem”, because other insurers and claims adjusters had raised the same question in response to requests for documents from the Chamber’s syndics. At the hearing of the motion, the syndic conceded that solicitor‑client privilege could be asserted against her and that the issue before the court was therefore limited to litigation privilege. As well, Aviva abandoned its argument that some of the requested documents did not relate to “the activities of a representative” within the meaning of s. 337 ADFPS. As a result, no facts were at issue before the motion judge.
III. Judicial History
A. Quebec Superior Court (2013 QCCS 6397)
[12] The Superior Court ruled in Aviva’s favour. The motion judge began by observing that s. 9 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12 (the “Quebec Charter”), grants quasi‑constitutional protection to professional secrecy of lawyers, which is closely linked to [translation] the “democratic values” (paras. 46 and 50‑51 (CanLII)). Although claims adjusters are not bound to professional secrecy by law, counsel retained by a claims adjuster or an insurer is so bound (paras. 47‑48). In Blood Tribe, it was held that an authority may not “pierce” solicitor‑client privilege absent express words in the applicable legislation. Because the ADFPS (and s. 337 thereof) contains no express abrogation of solicitor‑client privilege, the latter may be asserted against the syndic (paras. 53‑56).
[13] The motion judge then considered the syndic’s argument that litigation privilege can be distinguished from solicitor‑client privilege, in particular in that it is not protected by s. 9 of the Quebec Charter. In the motion judge’s view, this argument represented a [translation] “departure from the position taken by the Supreme Court in Foster Wheeler” (para. 63). In that case, LeBel J. had written that litigation privilege “is now being absorbed into the Quebec civil law concept of professional secrecy” (Foster Wheeler Power Co. v. Société intermunicipale de gestion et d’élimination des déchets (SIGED) inc., 2004 SCC 18, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 456, at para. 44). The motion judge also noted that the Federal Court had held, in two cases originating in common law provinces, that the principles applicable to solicitor‑client privilege in the context of the statute at issue in Blood Tribe (the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (“PIPEDA ”)) also applied to litigation privilege (paras. 64‑67).
[14] In light of the decision in Foster Wheeler, the motion judge considered himself bound to apply these principles to Quebec law and to find that, in the absence of express language, the ADFPS does not abrogate litigation privilege, which can therefore be asserted against the syndic (para. 68). He accordingly declared that both solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege can be asserted against the syndic of the Chamber [translation] “by anybody who receives a request for information” (para. 83).
B. Quebec Court of Appeal (2015 QCCA 152)
[15] The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on the motion, concluding that litigation privilege could be asserted against the syndic. In its view, the syndic had been right to concede that solicitor‑client privilege could be asserted against her, since the legislature is required to use express language to abrogate that privilege, which it had not done in this case. The court also noted that, by way of comparison, express language had been used in ss. 14.3, 60.4 and 192 of the Professional Code (which does not apply to claims adjusters) in the context of disciplinary inquiries (paras. 23 and 30 (CanLII)).
[16] Although solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege must be viewed as being conceptually distinct, the Court of Appeal noted that in Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319, this Court had written that the two rules “serve a common cause: The secure and effective administration of justice according to law” (para. 25, quoting Blank, at para. 31). As well, the Federal Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Alberta Court of Appeal had held that litigation and/or settlement privilege cannot be abrogated without clear and explicit language (paras. 31‑32). In the Court of Appeal’s view, the same reasoning applies to the instant case.
[17] The Court of Appeal added that this Court had also stated in Blank that the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A‑1 , had been enacted in a context in which the term “solicitor‑client privilege” was understood to include litigation privilege (para. 29). Yet the same context had also applied when the ADFPS was enacted in 1998, and when the legislature made amendments to that Act after Blank was decided, it did not add anything to abrogate solicitor‑client privilege or litigation privilege even though it had done so in the Professional Code with respect to professional secrecy (para. 30). The Court of Appeal concluded from this that litigation privilege could be asserted against the syndic. The court allowed the appeal, but solely to amend the motion judge’s conclusion such that it would apply to [translation] “the respondents” rather than to “any person” (para. 37).
IV. Issue
[18] In this Court, the syndic rightly admits that solicitor‑client privilege can be asserted against her in the context of a request for documents relating to a claim file. The central issue of the appeal is therefore whether Aviva could also assert litigation privilege against the syndic in the same context. To resolve it, I will have to determine whether litigation privilege may be abrogated using general rather than clear, explicit and unequivocal language and, accordingly, whether s. 337 ADFPS can be interpreted as establishing a valid abrogation of the privilege. Before doing so, however, I must first review the characteristics of litigation privilege.
V. Analysis
A. Characteristics of Litigation Privilege
[19] Litigation privilege gives rise to an immunity from disclosure for documents and communications whose dominant purpose is preparation for litigation. The classic examples of items to which this privilege applies are the lawyer’s file and oral or written communications between a lawyer and third parties, such as witnesses or experts: J.‑C. Royer and S. Lavallée, La preuve civile (4th ed. 2008), at pp. 1009‑10.
[20] Litigation privilege is a common law rule of English origin: Lyell v. Kennedy (No. 2) (1883), 9 App. Cas. 81 (H.L.). It was introduced to Canada, including Quebec, in the 20th century as a privilege linked to solicitor‑client privilege, which at the time was considered to be a rule of evidence that was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of trials: A. Cardinal, “Quelques aspects modernes du secret professionnel de l’avocat” (1984), 44 R. du B. 237, at pp. 266‑67. In an oft‑cited case, Jackett P. of the former Exchequer Court of Canada explained the purpose of litigation privilege, once known as the lawyer’s brief rule, as follows:
Turning to the “lawyer’s brief” rule, the reason for the rule is, obviously, that, under our adversary system of litigation, a lawyer’s preparation of his client’s case must not be inhibited by the possibility that the materials that he prepares can be taken out of his file and presented to the court in a manner other than that contemplated when they were prepared. What would aid in determining the truth when presented in the manner contemplated by the solicitor who directed its preparation might well be used to create a distortion of the truth to the prejudice of the client when presented by someone adverse in interest who did not understand what gave rise to its preparation. If lawyers were entitled to dip into each other’s briefs by means of the discovery process, the straightforward preparation of cases for trial would develop into a most unsatisfactory travesty of our present system. [Emphasis added.]
(Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27, at pp. 33‑34)
[21] Because of these origins, litigation privilege has sometimes been confused with solicitor‑client privilege, both at common law and in Quebec law: Royer and Lavallée, at pp. 1003‑4; N. J. Williams, “Discovery of Civil Litigation Trial Preparation in Canada” (1980), 58 Can. Bar Rev. 1, at pp. 37‑38.
[22] However, since Blank was rendered in 2006, it has been settled law that solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege are distinguishable. In Blank, the Court stated that “[t]hey often co‑exist and [that] one is sometimes mistakenly called by the other’s name, but [that] they are not coterminous in space, time or meaning” (para. 1). It identified the following differences between them:
• The purpose of solicitor‑client privilege is to protect a relationship, while that of litigation privilege is to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial process (para. 27);
• Solicitor‑client privilege is permanent, whereas litigation privilege is temporary and lapses when the litigation ends (paras. 34 and 36);
• Litigation privilege applies to unrepresented parties, even where there is no need to protect access to legal services (para. 32);
• Litigation privilege applies to non‑confidential documents (para. 28, quoting R. J. Sharpe, “Claiming Privilege in the Discovery Process”, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1984), 163, at pp. 164‑65);
• Litigation privilege is not directed at communications between solicitors and clients as such (para. 27).
[23] The Court also stated that litigation privilege, “unlike the solicitor‑client privilege, is neither absolute in scope nor permanent in duration” (Blank, at para. 37). Moreover, the Court confirmed that only those documents whose “dominant purpose” is litigation (and not those for which litigation is a “substantial purpose”) are covered by the privilege (para. 60). It noted that the concept of “related litigation”, which concerns different proceedings that are brought after the litigation that gave rise to the privilege, may extend the privilege’s effect (paras. 38‑41).
[24] While it is true that in Blank, the Court thus identified clear differences between litigation privilege and solicitor‑client privilege, it also recognized that they have some characteristics in common. For instance, it noted that the two privileges “serve a common cause: The secure and effective administration of justice according to law” (para. 31). More specifically, litigation privilege serves that cause by “ensur[ing] the efficacy of the adversarial process” (para. 27) and maintaining a “protected area to facilitate investigation and preparation of a case for trial by the adversarial advocate” (para. 40, quoting Sharpe, at p. 165).
[25] The differences identified in Blank between solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege have been adopted in Quebec law: Desjardins Assurances générales inc. v. Groupe Ledor inc., mutuelle d’assurances, 2014 QCCA 1501, at para. 8 (CanLII); Canada (Procureur général) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2014 QCCA 552, at para. 47 (CanLII); Informatique Côté, Coulombe inc. v. Groupe Son X Plus inc., 2012 QCCA 2262, at para. 15 (CanLII); Union canadienne (L’), compagnie d’assurance v. St‑Pierre, 2012 QCCA 433, [2012] R.J.Q. 340, at paras. 23‑24; Imperial Tobacco Canada ltée v. Létourneau, 2012 QCCA 2260, at paras. 7‑8 (CanLII); Société d’énergie de la Baie James v. Groupe Aecon ltée, 2011 QCCA 646, at para. 14 (CanLII); Fournier Avocats inc. v. Cinar Corp., 2010 QCCA 2278, at para. 21 (CanLII). In light of Blank and the subsequent case law, the earlier obiter dictum of LeBel J. in Foster Wheeler on which the motion judge relied in the instant case (para. 63) must be placed in its proper context. In Foster Wheeler, LeBel J. wrote that litigation privilege “is now being absorbed into the Quebec civil law concept of professional secrecy” (para. 44). However, that observation referred to a tendency that is no longer representative of the state of the law in Quebec. Moreover, because litigation privilege applies, for example, to an unrepresented party without the involvement of a professional counsellor (Blank, at para. 27), it cannot be said, despite the common characteristics, that it has been absorbed into, or constitutes a component or subcategory of, the institution of professional secrecy.
[26] This being said, the syndic in the case at bar is relying on Blank and on the differences identified in it as the basis for three arguments that support her view that litigation privilege should be given a limited scope.
[27] First, she submits that litigation privilege is not a class privilege and that this distinguishes it from solicitor‑client privilege, as it is intended not to protect a relationship, but solely to facilitate a process. Although taking care not to say that litigation privilege is essentially a [translation] “case‑by‑case privilege”, she submits that it is nevertheless a “limited privilege that must yield where the ends of justice so require or where that is justified by an overriding public interest”.
[28] Next, the syndic argues that litigation privilege must be subjected to a balancing test. In her view, courts must in every case assess the harm that would result from the application of the privilege and consider the opposing interests in deciding whether it should apply. The very existence of the privilege thus depends on an analysis specific to a given situation rather than on the application of certain defined exceptions as is the case for solicitor‑client privilege. The syndic considers that litigation privilege no longer reflects contemporary legal realities, which require more extensive co‑operation in the courts, and that it should therefore be given a very narrow scope.
[29] Finally, the syndic submits that it should not be possible to assert the privilege against someone who is not a party to the litigation in question. The Court should even adopt a [translation] “third party investigator exception”. In the syndic’s opinion, such an exception should apply in favour of anyone who:
[translation] . . . (i) is not a party to the litigation that gave rise to the privilege and is therefore a “third party” to the litigation who has no interest in it; (ii) has investigative powers conferred by the legislature in relation to a function being performed in the public interest; (iii) requests the production of documents that are directly relevant to the fulfillment of that function; (iv) has a duty of confidentiality that bars him or her from disclosing the requested documents, directly or indirectly, to the opposing party in the litigation that gave rise to the privilege; and (v) is authorized to disclose the documents only in a forum that itself is obligated and has the ability to maintain their confidentiality for at least as long as the duration of the litigation that gave rise to the privilege (and any related litigation). [A.F., at para. 136]
[30] I note that this last argument goes well beyond the narrow issue of legislative abrogation of the privilege raised in this appeal. The proposed exception, which is based on a balancing test, could cause the privilege to be inapplicable even before that issue arises. In support of the exception, the syndic asserts that her oath of discretion and duty of confidentiality substantially limit, or even eliminate, any risk of harm. In short, in a situation like the one in this case, the very limited scope of litigation privilege means that it should yield given the importance of the syndic’s function of protecting the public.
[31] I find these three arguments to be without merit. Although litigation privilege is distinguishable from solicitor‑client privilege, the fact remains that (1) it is a class privilege, (2) it is subject to clearly defined exceptions, not to a case‑by‑case balancing test, and (3) it can be asserted against third parties, including third party investigators who have a duty of confidentiality.
(1) Litigation Privilege Is a Class Privilege
[32] There are two types of privileges in our law: class privileges and case‑by‑case privileges. A class privilege entails a presumption of non‑disclosure once the conditions for its application are met. It is “more rigid than a privilege constituted on a case‑by‑case basis”, which means that it “does not lend itself to the same extent to be tailored to fit the circumstances”: R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 477, at para. 46. On the other hand, “[t]he scope of [a] case‑by‑case privilege”, as the name suggests, “will depend, as does its very existence, on a case‑by‑case analysis, and may be total or partial” (National Post, at para. 52). The four “Wigmore criteria”, the last of which is a balancing of the interests at stake, are applied:
The “Wigmore criteria” consist of four elements which may be expressed for present purposes as follows. First, the communication must originate in a confidence that the identity of the informant will not be disclosed. Second, the confidence must be essential to the relationship in which the communication arises. Third, the relationship must be one which should be “sedulously fostered” in the public good (“Sedulous[ly]” being defined . . . as “diligent[ly] . . . deliberately and consciously”). Finally, if all of these requirements are met, the court must consider whether in the instant case the public interest served by protecting the identity of the informant from disclosure outweighs the public interest in getting at the truth. . . .
. . .
The fourth Wigmore criterion does most of the work. Having established the value to the public of the relationship in question, the court must weigh against its protection any countervailing public interest such as the investigation of a particular crime (or national security, or public safety or some other public good). [paras. 53 and 58]
[33] In my opinion, litigation privilege is a class privilege. Once the conditions for its application are met, that is, once there is a document created for “the dominant purpose of litigation” (Blank, at para. 59) and the litigation in question or related litigation is pending “or may reasonably be apprehended” (para. 38), there is a “prima facie presumption of inadmissibility” in the sense intended by Lamer C.J. in R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263:
The parties have tended to distinguish between two categories: a “blanket”, prima facie, common law, or “class” privilege on the one hand, an