Une partie affirmant qu'un document est privilégié a le fardeau d'établir l'existence de ce privilège

Keefer Laundry Ltd. v. Pellerin Milnor Corp. et al., 2006 BCSC 1180 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[55]           Lawyer-client privilege, also termed solicitor-client privilege, is the “highest privilege” recognized by the courts because communications between lawyers and their clients are essential to the effective operation of the adversarial justice system.  Clients seeking legal advice must be able to communicate with lawyers without fear that their communications may be disclosed to anyone else.  Otherwise they are likely to censor themselves, and their lawyers will be unable to accurately discern the legal issues involved or provide adequate representation before and during trial.  (Smith v. Jones, 1999 CanLII 674 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455, 62 B.C.L.R. (3d) 209 at paras. 44-47).

[56]           Lawyer-client privilege is a rule of evidence, a fundamental civil and legal right, and a principle of fundamental justice in Canadian law.  (Foster Wheeler Power Co v. Société intermunipale de gestion et d’élimination des déchets (SIGED) Inc., 2004 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2004 SCC 18; Lavallée, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (A.G.), 2002 SCC 61 (CanLII), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209 at 251, 2002 SCC 61;Solosky v. Canada, 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821, 105 D.L.R. (3d) 745.)

[57]           The courts have continually affirmed that the protection of confidentiality provided by lawyer-client privilege must be as close as possible to absolute to ensure public confidence.  As a class privilege, it does not involve a balancing of interests on a case-by-case basis.  Disclosure of information subject to lawyer-client privilege must be ordered only when it is absolutely necessary to achieve the ends of justice.  (Goodis v. Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services), 2006 SCC 31 (CanLII), 2006 SCC 31, R. v. McClure, 2001 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445 at 459, 95 D.L.R. (4th) 513, Legal Services Society v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner) 2003 BCCA 278 (CanLII), (2003), 14 B.C.L.R. (4th) 67, 2003 BCCA 278.)

[58]           A party asserting that a document is privileged bears the onus of establishing the privilege.  (Hamalainen v. Sippola 1991 CanLII 440 (BC CA), (1991), 62 B.C.L.R. (2d) 254, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 132 (C.A.).)

[60]           Not every item of correspondence passing between a lawyer and client is privileged.  Privilege can only be claimed document by document, and each document must meet the following criteria: (i) a communication between lawyer and client; (ii) that entails the seeking or giving of legal advice; and (iii) that is intended to be confidential by the parties.  (Solosky v. Canada, supra.)  Legal advice is not limited to explanations of law; it includes advice as to what a client should do in a particular legal context.