Law Times

Law Times • march 6, 2017 Page 9 www.lawtimesnews.com Concern over sharing documents due to ruling BY SHANNON KARI For Law Times A Federal Court of Can- ada decision issued late last year is continuing to cause concern with- in the corporate legal world over the impact of sharing privileged documents when there is a com- mon interest between the parties in a commercial transaction. The decision in Iggillis Hold- ings Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) rejected the applica- tion of a doctrine that is known as advisory or transactional "common interest privilege," which started to be accepted by courts in common law countries in the early 1980s. The doctrine meant that so- licitor-client privilege would not necessarily be waived if a pro- tected document was shared by parties with a common interest in a transaction or litigation. In a lengthy ruling released in December, the doctrine was rejected by Federal Court Jus- tice Peter Annis, who warned that attempts to expand it could spread like "crabgrass" and im- properly keep relevant docu- ments from courts. "Advisory CIP (common interest privilege) is only now starting to come of age," the judge wrote. If it was accepted by the courts, then lawyers would seek to invoke the privilege on any communications where there might be a common interest, Annis suggested. "The courts should not de- lude themselves into thinking that allied lawyer privilege is a minor change in the world of solicitor-client privilege. It has already been demonstrated that it represents a veritable sea of change with an exponential ex- pansion in the number and type of situations seen in the past two or three decades. This comes at a significant cost through the loss of highly probative evidence with no discernable benefit to the administration of justice," wrote Annis. The Federal Court ruling sparked considerable legal com- mentary after its release. The decision has been ap- pealed, but that hearing is not expected to take place before the fall. In the meantime, lawyers acting for clients in commer- cial transactions are likely to be more cautious before shar- ing documents, says Alexander Cobb, a partner and commercial litigator at Osler Hoskin & Har- court LLP in Toronto. "It will make transactions more expensive and create more uncertainty," he says. "The course of prudence will be to take the most conservative approach. "I think the decision is prob- lematic," Cobb adds. "There are perfectly anodyne, perfectly sound reasons for sharing priv- ileged information." One example is a friendly acquisition, where the target is facing significant litigation that could impact its operations. The potential sharing of information would be documents that any plaintiff would not normally be entitled to in any event, because of solicitor-client privilege, ex- plains Cobb. While the ruling is perhaps the "deepest dive" into this area of the law by a Canadian court, the conclusions were still a sur- prise, says Maureen Littlejohn, a litigation partner at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in Toronto. She notes that the ruling is contrary to how some Superior Court level judges have inter- preted the issue as well as that of the Federal Court, in a decision issued a number of years ago. The findings in Iggillis pot- entially confuse the actual meaning and use of common interest privilege, suggests Little- john. "It does not operate on a standalone basis to prevent dis- closure. It is an anti-waiver doc- trine. If properly understood, it is about continuing to protect documents that are already priv- ileged. If anything, it is a deriva- tive privilege," says Littlejohn. The document at issue in the Iggillis case was a tax-related memo prepared by a lawyer for Abacus Capital Corporation. The memo was shared by the two companies before entering into commercial transactions that the Canada Revenue Agency later alleged was for tax-avoiding purposes. It sought a copy of the legal memo. The companies main- tained that the memo was still subject to privilege under the doctrine of common interest privilege. Past case law, including a 2003 decision of the Federal Court in Pitney Bowes v. Canada, found that in some situations, such as transactions, privilege is not ne- cessarily waived. "The sharing of legal opin- ions will ensure that each party has an appreciation of the legal position of the others and ne- gotiations can proceed in an informed and open way," wrote Justice James O'Reilly in that case. Annis concluded that his colleague's decision on this issue could be distinguished because it involved a joint client rep- resentation and not allied law- yers with common interests. The Federal Court judge stat- ed that he was relying heavily on a decision last year by the New York State Court of Appeals in Ambac v. Countrywide Homes, which rejected common interest privilege except in litiga- tion-related cases. The Federal Court ruling is not binding on Superior Courts, but it will be binding in cases in- volving any federal agency un- less is it is overturned on appeal, says Cobb. LT FOCUS Maureen Littlejohn says the findings in a recent Federal Court of Canada case poten- tially confuse the actual meaning and use of common interest privilege. ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY! Visit carswell.com or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation THE MOST COMPLETE DIRECTORY OF ONTARIO LAWYERS, LAW FIRMS, JUDGES AND COURTS Ontario Lawyer's Phone Book is your best connection to legal services in Ontario with more than 1,400 pages of essential legal references. You can depend on the accuracy of this trusted directory that includes the most up-to-date names, phone numbers, mailing addresses and emails so you don't have to search anywhere else. More detail and a wider scope of legal contact information for Ontario: • Over 26,800 lawyers listed • Over 8,500 law firms and corporate offices listed • Fax and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, office locations and postal codes Includes lists of: • Federal and provincial judges • Federal courts, including a section for federal government departments, boards and commissions • Ontario courts and services, including a section for provincial government ministries, boards and commissions • Small claims courts • The Institute of Law Clerks of Ontario • Miscellaneous services for lawyers NEW EDITION Perfectbound Published December each year On subscription $82.50 One time purchase $86 L7796-5932 Multiple copy discounts available Plus applicable taxes and shipping & handling. (prices subject to change without notice) ONTARIO LAWYER'S PHONE BOOK 2017 Untitled-3 1 2017-02-28 3:14 PM 5 th Annual Canadian Construction Insurance Law: An Update on Strategies Vancouver | May 2017 COURSE LEADERS David Miachika, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Sharon Vogel, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP COURSE HIGHLIGHTS • Construction Class Actions • Builder's Risk Policies • Commercial General Liability Policies • Navigating Pollution Coverage: A Shifting Landscape • Professional Liability Policies • Bonds and Default Insurance • Defence and Recover Strategies DATE & LOCATION Vancouver: May 25th, 2017 Vancouver Convention Centre 1055 Canada Place Vancouver, BC, V6C 0C3 FOR QUESTIONS AND GROUP RATES, PLEASE CONTACT: Toll-Free: 1-877-298-5868 • Direct: 416-609-5868 Fax: 416-609-5841 • Website: cpdcentre.ca Email: lexpert.questions@thomsonreuters.com Register online at www.lexpert.ca/cpdcentre For more information, please contact Lexpert® Professional Developments at 1-877-298-5868 CONSTRUCTION LIABILITIES: A SHIFTING LANDSCAPE EARLY BIRD ENDS APR.24

• Cover