Dryer,
J.:—Many
of
the
paragraphs
of
the
affidavit
of
Archie
Frank
Hale
do
not
meet
the
requirements
of
M.R.
523
and
I
have
consequently
disregarded
them.
Some
paragraphs
of
the
affidavit
are
statements
of
inferences
drawn
by
the
deponent
from
matters
said
to
have
been
observed
by
him,
most
of
which
matters
are
not
set
forth
in
the
affidavit.
These
also
I
have
disregarded.
I
have
also
disregarded
Ex.
17
to
that
affidavit
since
the
affidavit
does
not
show
the
relationship
of
Touche,
Ross,
Bailey
and
Smart
to
any
of
the
parties.
There
is,
however,
sufficient
acceptable
material
before
me
to
provide
a
prima
facie
case
in
support
of
the
allegation
in
paragraph
10(a)
of
the
said
affidavit
and
I
therefore
hold
that
all
documents
in
the
files
designed
to
put
into
effect
or
give
effect
to
the
relationship
therein
referred
to
are
not
privileged.
I
will
hereafter
call
this
relationship
the
‘‘
Romar
relationship’’.
As
to
a
prima
facie
case
being
sufficient,
see
In
Re
Income
Tax
and
Milner
August
15,
1968
XII
81/66.
In
deciding
whether,
apart
from
the
foregoing,
any
documents
are
privileged,
I
have
applied
the
principles
which
I
set
forth
in
reasons
for
judgment
given
August
26,
1968
in
In
Re
Income
Tax
Act
and
Edward
Evans
et
al.
X
613/68.
At
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing
I
asked
counsel
to
go
through
the
files
and
eliminate
any
documents
which
were
obviously
not
privileged.
This
has
not
been
done.
The
documents
submitted
to
be
consist
of
the
following
:
1.
A
statement
of
receipts
and
disbursements.
This
is
not
privileged.
2.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
4366A
Modern
Film
Distributors
re
Italy
’
’.
3.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
4366B
Modern
Film
Distributors
re
Taiwan”.
4.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
4366B
Modern
Film
Distributors
re
England’’.
Most
of
the
documents
in
the
three
last
mentioned
files
are
outside
the
solicitor-client
privilege.
There
are
some
solicitorclient
communications
and
some,
what
appear
to
be
solicitor’s
memos,
but
none
of
those
are
privileged
by
reason
of
the
Romar
relationship.
5.
A
file
marked
‘‘
A
6854
Berti
to
Andrus’’.
This
file
is
not
affected
by
the
Romar
relationship.
It
contains
some
solicitor’s
memos
and
drafts
which
are
privileged
and
a
number
of
documents
such
as
a
deed,
correspondence
with
third
persons,
land
registry
documents,
and
a
tax
notice
which
are
not
privileged.
6.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
4366
Andrus
v.
Andrus’’.
The
only
solicitor-client
communication
on
this
file
is
a
letter
to
R.
B.
Andrews.
This
is
not
affected
by
the
Romar
relationship
and
is
privileged.
The
remainder
of
the
file
is
not
privileged.
7.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
1051
Romar
Films
Documents’’.
The
file
contains
agreements
and
copies
of
agreements
between
Romar
Films
Ltd.
and
Modern
Film
Distributors,
A.T.A.
Trading
Corporation
and
Modern
Film
Distributors,
A.T.A.
Trading
Corporation
and.
Romar
Films
Ltd.,
and
Floyd
Lewis
Attractions
and
Romar
Films
Ltd.,
and
some
correspondence
between
these
firms.
None
of
these
are
privileged
in
any
event.
It
also
contains
what
appear
to
be
drafts
and
solicitor’s
memos
which
by
reason
of
the
Romar
relationship
I
hold
to
be
not
privileged.
8.
An
envelope
containing
eight
cheques
and
a
debit
memo
which,
by
reason
of
the
Romar
relationship
are
not
privileged.
9.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
1051
Romar
Films
Ltd.”.
This
file
consists
for
the
most
part
of
documents
that
are
not
solicitor-client
communications
and
are
therefore
not
privileged.
There
are
some
such
communications,
and
some
solicitor’s
memos,
which
are
not
privileged
because
of
the
Romar
relationship.
There
is
also
some
correspondence
with
an
Ottawa
firm
of
solicitors
who
appear
to
be
agents
of
the
solicitor
and
some
solicitor’s
memos
and
a
letter
from
the
client
which
do
not
appear
to
be
affected
by
the
Romar
relationship.
These
are
privileged.
10.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
4866
Modern
Film
Distributors
Ltd.’’.
This
file
consists
for
the
most
part
of
documents
that
are
not
solicitor-client
communications
and
are
therefore
not
privileged.
There
are
some
such
communications
which
are
not.
privileged
because
of
the
Romar
relationship.
There
is
also
a
memo
in
handwriting
which
does
not
appear
to
be
affected
by
the
Romar
relationship
and
which
may
be
a
solicitor-client
communication
or
a
solicitor’s
memo,
but
since
I
do
not
know
if
that
is
so,
and
since
the
person
claiming
the
privilege
must
establish
it,
I
must
hold
it
to
be
not
privileged.
I
have
placed
it
on
top
of
the
nonprivileged
portion
of
the
file.
There
are
also
some
solicitor-client
communications,
including
communications
with
agents,
and
some
solicitor’s
memos,
all
of
which
appear
to
be
not
affected
by
the
Romar
relationship.
These
are
privileged.
11.
A
ledger
sheet.
This
is
not
privileged.
12.
A
statement
of
receipts
and
disbursements.
This
is
not
privileged.
13.
Corporation
Record
Book
of
Modern
Film
Distributors
Ltd.
This
is
not
privileged.
14.
A
file
marked
‘‘A
1051A
Ro-Mar
Films
Ltd.
re
Bob
and
Sally’’.
There
are
no
solicitor-client
communications
on
this
file
and
none
of
it
is
privileged.
15.
A
file
marked
“A
1051
Ro-Mar
Films,
Contracts
Only’’.
Most
of
the
documents
on
this
file
are
not
solicitor-client
communications
and
are
therefore
not
privileged.
There
are
some
solicitor’s
memos
which
appear
to
relate
to
the
Romar
relationship.
These
are
not
privileged.
There
are
some
solicitor’s
memos
and
one
solicitor-client
communication
with
enclosures
which
do
not
appear
to
be
connected
with
the
Romar
relationship.
These
are
privileged.
16.
An
envelope
containing
a
file
marked
“A
4875
R.
B.
Andrus
and
Mrs.
R.
B.
Andrus
and
Modern
Film
Distributors
Ltd.’’.
This
file
contains
a
great
many
documents
which
are
not
solicitor-client
communications
such
as
court
documents,
correspondence
with
third
parties,
and
a
marriage
certificate,
which
are
not
privileged.
It
also
contains
a
number
of
solicitor-client
communications
including
material
obtained
by
the
solicitor
for
the
purposes
of
litigation
and
solicitor’s
memos,
none
of
which
appear
to
be
connected
with
the
Romar
relationship.
These
are
privileged.
I
have
placed
all
the
documents
held
to
be
privileged
in
envelopes
marked
“Privileged”
and
those
held
to
be
not
privileged
in
envelopes
marked
‘‘Not
Privileged”.
Those
marked
“Privileged”
are
to
be
returned
to
Messrs.
Harper,
Gilmour
and
Company,
and
the
others
to
be
turned
over
to
Mr.
Jackson.
It
is
apparent
that
in
this
case
the
solicitors,
on
behalf
of
their
clients,
claimed
privileged
in
respect
of
their
entire
files.
I
suggest
that
such
a
claim
should
only
be
made
in
respect
of
documents
which
may
be
covered
by
the
privilege
relating
to
solicitor-client
communications,
including
that
relating
to
the
privacy
of
the
solicitor’s
preparation.
It
should
not
be
necessary
for
the
court
to
go
through
hundreds
of
documents
in
respect
of
which
no
claim
of
privilege
could
possibly
succeed.
Making
such
clearly
unfounded
claims
of
privilege
can
only
reduce
the
time
available
for
consideration
of
documents
in
respect
of
which
a
claim
for
privilege
might
succeed.
Email this Content