Rouleau,
J:—A
number
of
files
of
the
solicitors
Stitt,
Baker
&
McKenzie
who
are
the
solicitors
of
record
for
the
applicant
in
this
matter,
were
seized
by
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
pursuant
to
subsection
232(4)
of
the
Income
Tax
Act.
Among
the
papers
seized,
ten
documents,
enclosed
in
a
sealed
packet,
are
subject
to
the
determination
as
to
whether
or
not
the
applicant
can
claim
solicitor-client
privilege.
Under
separate
cover
a
sealed
envelope
containing
the
ten
documents
was
submitted
to
the
Court
for
review.
I
have
thoroughly
reviewed
all
of
these
documents.
The
High
Court
of
Justice
of
the
province
of
Ontario
in
Re
Ontario
Securities
Commission
and
Greymac
Credit
Corporation,
41
OR
(2d)
328,
summarizes
the
law
with
respect
to
solicitor-and-client
privilege
dealing
with
documents
held
in
their
file.
At
333
we
find
where
the
Divisional
Court
is
quoting
from
R
V
Littlechild
(1979),
108
DLR
(3d)
340
at
347,
wherein
they
emphasize
the
importance
of
the
privilege:
The
privilege
protecting
from
disclosure
communications
between
solicitor
and
client
is
a
fundamental
right
—
as
fundamental
as
the
right
to
counsel
itself
since
the
right
can
exist
only
imperfectly
without
the
privilege.
The
Courts
should
be
astute
to
protect
both.
As
long
ago
as
Pearson
v
Foster
(1885),
15
QBD
114,
Brett,
MR,
warned
that
free
and
confident
communication
within
the
solicitor-client
relationship
is
so
vital
a
part
of
the
right
to
counsel
that
the
privilege
ought
not
to
be
“frittered
away”.
At
pp
119-20
he
Said:
“The
privilege
with
regard
to
confidential
communications
between
solicitor
and
client
for
professional
purposes
ought
to
be
preserved,
and
not
frittered
way.
The
reason
of
the
privilege
is
that
there
may
be
that
free
and
confident
communication
between
solicitor
and
client
which
lies
at
the
foundation
of
the
use
and
service
of
the
solicitor
to
the
client
.
.
.
The
Divisional
Court
goes
on
to
say
at
333-334:
As
to
the
scope
of
the
privilege,
Lamer
J
at
603
DLR,
p
518
NR,
referred
to
Wigmore:
“The
following
statement
by
Wigmore
(8
Wigmore,
Evidence,
subsection
2292,
p
554
(McNaughton
Rev
1961),
of
the
rule
of
evidence
is
a
good
summary,
in
my
view,
of
the
substantive
conditions
precedent
to
the
existence
of
the
right
of
the
lawyer’s
client
to
confidentiality:
‘Where
legal
advice
of
any
kind
is
sought
from
a
professional
legal
adviser
in
his
capacity
as
such,
the
communications
relating
to
that
purpose,
made
in
confidence
by
the
client,
are
at
his
instance
permanently
protected
from
disclosure
by
himself
or
by
the
legal
adviser,
except
the
protection
be
waived.*”
It
should
be
noted
that
there
is
no
allegation
of
fraud
with
respect
to
any
of
the
transactions
that
are
being
investigated
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue.
The
documents
under
seizure
in
which
solicitor-client
privilege
is
claimed
are
listed
in
the
application;
they
number
1
to
10.
Documents
1,
4,
6
and
9
are
obviously
legal
advice
to
the
client
and
need
not
be
disclosed.
Document
2
is
a
lawyer’s
worksheet
from
his
file.
It
is
undated
and
appears
to
be
notes
with
respect
to
the
drafting
of
minutes
for
a
corporate
minute
book
and
need
not
be
disclosed.
Document
3
is
an
inter-office
memorandum
from
one
solicitor
to
another
within
the
firm
concerning
meetings.
It
has
no
bearing
in
this
matter
and
need
not
be
disclosed.
Document
5
is
a
memorandum
between
solicitors
again
referring
to
some
correspondence
which
has
been
forwarded
to
another
solicitor
which
need
not
be
disclosed.
Documents
7,
8
and
10
are
memoranda
between
solicitors,
located
in
the
United
States
and
in
Canada,
representing
the
parties
involved
in
this
matter.
They
relate
to
discussions
with
client
and
legal
advice
and
are
also
subject
to
the
privilege
and
shall
not
be
ordered
disclosed.
Documents
1
to
10
and
the
sealed
brown
envelope
which
accompanied
this
application
are
to
be
held
by
the
Registrar
at
the
City
of
Toronto.
Upon
being
notified
of
this
order,
counsel
for
both
the
applicant
and
the
respondent
are
to
attend
the
offices
of
the
Registrar
accompanied
by
Mr
Stewart,
the
custodian
of
the
file.
The
Registrar
shall
then
take
the
sealed
envelope
provided
for
the
Court,
remove
the
contents
and,
from
the
copies
contained
in
the
confidential
envelope
provided
for
the
Court,
shall
remove
from
the
file
those
documents
listed
1
to
10
and
which
were
the
subject
of
this
application.
All
this
to
be
done
in
the
presence
of
counsel
for
both
parties
as
well
as
the
custodian,
Mr
Stewart.
There
shall
be
no
order
as
to
costs.
Email this Content