Sentences with phrase «claim litigation privilege»

In a 2015 case involving an attempt by CIBC to claim $ 3 billion in business income deductions, Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter of the Tax Court of Canada refused to allow the bank to claim litigation privilege over 670 documents that had allegedly been misclassified by the third party (not a law firm) to whom CIBC had outsourced its document review.

While litigation does not have to be the only possible purpose to claim litigation privilege, it must be the main one.

(2) BTA Bank v. Ablyazov [2014] EWHC 2788 Bank entitled to production of documents created by or produced for solicitors as Defendant not entitled to claim litigation privilege.

The decision of the CAT confirmed that entitlement to claim litigation privilege in the context of regulatory enforcement proceedings will depend on the specific circumstances of the regulatory procedure and the stage it has reached.

Similarly, a plain reading of Bill 132 suggests an organization's right to claim litigation privilege over documents created pursuant to the investigation will be diminished, because an investigation is arguably conducted for the dominant purpose of compliance with Bill 132 and an organization's internal policies, rather than for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The effect of this decision is that it is much harder to claim litigation privilege in the criminal context than in a civil one.

Chief Justice Rossiter found that litigation privilege did not apply to the hundreds of documents which CIBC claimed litigation privilege over.

Not exact matches

But where the contents of a meeting would hurt Uber's litigation position, Uber is quick to conceal the facts under claims of privilege.

RBS claimed legal advice privilege in «transcripts, notes or other records» of interviews conducted by or on behalf of the bank with its employees and ex-employees as part of internal investigations after the rights issue, but before litigation was contemplated.

The judge rejected as a reasonable explanation the claim that the recordings were subject to litigation privilege.

The claimant brought this application for an order that the defendants disclose an independent adjuster's report and audio statements over which litigation privilege was claimed.

[27] Some authority supports the proposition that where the privilege claimed is not solicitor - client privilege but rather litigation privilege, as in this case, the premium placed on protecting the information is lower and the description must be more detailed to facilitate challenge.

[10] In order that proper assessment may be made as to the propriety of a claim of litigation or dominant purpose privilege it is necessary that sufficient particulars of the documents be given.

Interestingly, the court stated that just because a claim for litigation privilege fails in a document production application the party is free to raise the claim again at trial and the trial judge will need to consider whether the documents can stay out of evidence for grounds privilege.

However, following ENRC (where the SFO successfully challenged claims of both litigation and legal advice privilege over documents created during an internal investigation), this ability to control information is less clear and is arguably a disadvantage of self - reporting.

A sufficient description of the document (s) must also be produced in order to establish the evidentiary basis for the privilege claimed (e.g. to establish that the document was created to prepare for reasonably apprehended litigation).

Appeared in the long running Kensington v Congo litigation including the important Court of Appeal decision in November 2007 [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1144 on the availability of the privilege against self - incrimination in respect of corruption and bribery claims.

In response to Suncor's claim to litigation privilege, the Ministry of Labour and the Government of Alberta asked the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench to order Suncor to provide information and records related to the workplace fatality.

The mere fact that a document is produced for the purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, or of conducting or aiding in the conduct of such litigation, is not sufficient to found a claim for litigation privilege.

1 Jan. 14, 2016)(unpublished) is an interesting SLAPP grant, producing a split merits decision as far as the grant on a claim based on the litigation privilege.

Litigation privilege is a form of legal privilege that can be claimed over documents and information created for the dominant purpose of preparing for reasonably anticipated litigation — such as a prosecution under health and safety leLitigation privilege is a form of legal privilege that can be claimed over documents and information created for the dominant purpose of preparing for reasonably anticipated litigation — such as a prosecution under health and safety lelitigation — such as a prosecution under health and safety legislation.

Finally, although the judiciary strives to uphold claims to privilege, recent case law (in particular RBS Rights Issue Litigation, Re [2016] EWCH 3161 (Ch)-RRB- demonstrates the significant constraints they are operating in to meet the requirements of the controversial Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers District Council (No 5)[2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] All ER (D) 59 (Apr)(TR5) where, among other things, «client» was narrowly defined.

In the regulatory context, the question has arisen whether enforcement proceedings qualify as litigation for the purpose of establishing a claim to litigation privilege.

[87] The requirement that litigation be «reasonably in prospect» is not satisfied unless parties seeking to claim privilege can show that they aware of circumstances that rendered litigation between themselves and a particular person or class of persons a real likelihood rather than a mere possibility; identifying potential causes of action and defendants to possible claims falls short of the necessary threshold.

Regardless, if positive results are found or an insurer intends to rely on the surveillance and an affidavit of documents has not been served, an entry indicating that surveillance or an investigation has been conducted must be listed in Schedule «B» of an affidavit of documents with a claim of litigation privilege.

The issue whether a President can be cited for contempt could itself engender protracted litigation, and would further delay both review on the merits of his claim of privilege and the ultimate termination of the underlying criminal action for which his evidence is sought.

More specifically, our construction lawyers deal with: - construction litigation and professional liability; - termination of contracts for work carried out; - legal hypothec of construction (privileges); - contract negotiation, mediation, arbitration and interpretation; - representation before the RBQ, claims / fines with CSST and C.S.Q.; - commercial leases and condos, incorporation, REQ, annual bookkeeping, dissolution, mergers, purchase / sale of companies, partnerships, financing, etc..

Legal professional privilege may be claimed over any communication between a client and their lawyer seeking or giving legal advice and over communications between a lawyer and a third party if litigation was in contemplation and the document or communication was created for the dominant purpose of litigation.

That failure, in these circumstances, undermines the defendant's affidavit evidence, calls into question the dominant purpose for the creation of Item 4.3, and is fatal to the defendants» claim for litigation privilege over Item 4.3.

[31] I do not say that a deponent, who prepares an affidavit that is intended to support a claim for litigation privilege, must address and negate all other potential or notional purposes, however remote, for which that document might have been prepared.

Practice Highlights His practice includes representing physicians and medical clinics in negotiating employment contracts, partnership contracts, joint venture contracts and establishment of medical corporations; representation of physicians and medical clinics in the purchase and sale of medical practices; representation of physicians, dentists, pharmacists, medical clinics, surgical centers, hospitals, clinical laboratories and nursing homes before the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, Illinois Department of Public Aid, Illinois Department of Public Health and Federal Department of Health and Human Services in administrative license and recoupment hearings; representation of brokers and salesman before the Office of Banks and Real Estate; representation of physicians and other health care providers at internal hospital hearings involving termination or discipline of hospital privileges; representation of physicians in hearings before managed care providers to terminate the physician as a provider; representation of health care providers in criminal proceedings in federal or state court on charges related to Medicare and Medicaid vendor fraud and false claims; general and civil litigation related to medical care providers; and domestic relations.

Further, the Court reinforced the requirement that to defend such claims in Court, documents must be described in a way that distinguishes whether solicitor - client privilege or litigation privilege is the basis of the claim.

The Court of Queen's Bench focused its analysis on whether the dual - purpose of the investigation (first, carrying on an investigation in the context of a statutory requirement under the OHSA, and second, conducting an investigation in anticipation of litigation) frustrated Suncor's claim of litigation privilege.

Suncor claimed both solicitor - client privilege and litigation privilege over nearly all of the requested documents.

Suncor was ordered to provide the refused information to the referee and to identify the records, information and communications it claimed are covered by litigation privilege or solicitor - client privilege.

RBS argued that litigation privilege applied: the dominant purpose of the investigation and the documents was for RBS to defend itself against HMRC whose letter was effectively a pre-action letter before claim.

The judge found that for the purpose of a claim to litigation privilege where criminal proceedings are said to have been contemplated, the party claiming privilege must have uncovered evidence of wrongdoing (so as to reasonably contemplate prosecution, rather than an investigation) before proceedings could be said to be in reasonable contemplation.

Factors that may strengthen a claim to privilege over interview notes include where, for example, notes arise from interviews with likely potential defence witnesses in contemplated litigation or where interviews are conducted with a view to assessing the potential risk the witness may pose in likely proceedings.

This will depend on the facts of the case, but where litigation is in contemplation, this should be documented to assist in defending any challenge to a claim for privilege.

In rejecting ENRC's claim of privilege, the judge held that litigation was not in reasonable contemplation, although the documents were created in the context of an anticipated criminal investigation by the SFO.

Mamaca is a leading decision on the criteria for establishing litigation privilege in the context of insurance claims.

In litigation arising from a boating accident in which a teenage girl's leg was pulled into the boat's propellers, a Norfolk Circuit Court upholds a city's claim of a criminal investigative privilege and sustains the city's motion to quash a...

Acted for insurance company on first case to consider piercing litigation privilege based on allegations of bad faith claims practices.

The object and meaning of the rule is this: that as, by reason of the complexity and difficulty of our law, litigation can only be properly conducted by professional men, it is absolutely necessary that a man, in order to prosecute his rights or to defend himself from an improper claim, should have recourse to the assistance of professional lawyers,... to use a vulgar phrase, that he should be able to make a clean breast of it to the gentleman whom he consults with a view to the prosecution of his claim, or the substantiating of his defence... that he should be able to place unrestricted and unbounded confidence in the professional agent, and that the communications he so makes to him should be kept secret, unless with his consent (for it is his privilege, and not the privilege of the confidential agent), that he should be enabled properly to conduct his litigation.

[15] The MEA investigative material, notes, correspondence and working papers which arose between August 9, 2007 and September 13, 2007 inclusive are not subject to a valid claim of litigation privilege; they are ordered to be listed and to be produced to plaintiff's counsel within 14 days.

Anticipation of Litigation: The Role of Litigation Privilege in Subrogated Claims - Subrogation and Recovery Alert!

If there are any other MEA materials which arose between September 14, 2007 and the date when defence counsel commissioned their expert report, those are to be listed with the required clarity, date and description in order that any further claim of litigation privilege can be properly assessed.

In this edition we discuss trade mark infringement, litigation privilege, warranty claims, fraud in invoice financing, employee fraud and gagging clauses.

Documents prepared during this «investigative «stage generally need to be produced during litigation and claims for litigation privilege will fail.

While positioning investigative capability within the legal function maximises claims to privilege and creates the opportunity for deploying the forensic expertise of litigation lawyers in investigative roles, it is by no means standard in the market, and many companies still engage compliance teams in investigative activity.