Sentences with phrase «dominant purpose of the documents»

Not exact matches

Where a workplace accident has occurred, and the employer has statutory duties under sections 18 and 19 of the OHSA and simultaneously undertakes an internal investigation, claiming legal privilege over all materials derived as part of that investigation, an inquiry is properly directed to a referee under Rule 6.45 to determine the dominant purpose for the creation of each document or bundle of like documents in order to assess the claims of legal privilege.

[53] The chambers judge erred in finding that the dominant purpose of the internal investigation was in contemplation of litigation and therefore every document «created and / or collected» during the investigation is clothed with legal privilege.

[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.

Lawyers should be careful not to extend blanket «litigation privilege» over documents; serious consideration should be given to whether the documentation was created with the dominant purpose of actual or reasonably anticipated litigation, just as it is with documentary discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

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 legislation.

In light of the Court of Appeal decision, additional steps could involve more specifically identifying documents and information over which privilege could reasonably be asserted and materials that are unlikely to be considered privileged (because they were not created or prepared for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation or receiving legal advice).

The Judge ruled that litigation privilege can only protect documents which are prepared with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation, and that it can not protect documents produced with the purpose of enabling advice to be taken in connection with anticipated litigation.

But even if this aspect of the judgment is successfully appealed, the more intractable challenge facing companies will be to show that documents created during an internal investigation — such as interview records — were created for the «dominant purpose» of future litigation.

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 dominant purpose for the communication or the production of the relevant document must have been either to obtain information or advice in connection with the litigation or to conduct or assist in the conduct of it.

«Having considered the decisions, the writings and the various aspects of the public interest which claim attention, I have come to the conclusion that the court should state the relevant principle as follows: a document which was produced or brought into existence either with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction, whether particular or general, it was produced or brought into existence, of using it or its contents in order to obtain legal advice or to conduct or aid in the conduct of litigation, at the time of its production in reasonable prospect, should be privileged and excluded from inspection.»

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.

Litigation privilege will only apply if litigation is reasonably contemplated when the investigation begins, and any communication or document is created for the dominant purpose of that litigation.

The decision re-affirms that such documents are not covered by litigation privilege and protected from disclosure unless it is proved that the dominant purpose for their creation was in contemplation of litigation.

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.

Second, even if a prosecution had been reasonably in contemplation, none of the documents had been created with the dominant purpose of being used in such litigation.

Vos LJ held that the documents sought by Bilta were created for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation.

Documents created for the purposes of preparing for, or conducting, adversarial proceedings are privileged if this was their dominant purpose and the document is a confidential communication between the lawyer and client, or either and a third party such as a compliance consultant, provided that adversarial proceedings were in reasonable contemplation of the party.

Note, however, that in the ENRC decision, on the facts of that case it was determined that litigation privilege would not apply to material created for the dominant purpose of litigation where it was intended that the document would be shown to the other side.

The tension was resolved by Sir Geoffrey Vos by distinguishing whether documents are created for the sole / dominant purpose based on the facts of each case.

The relevant communication or document is made or created with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting that litigation; and

Similarly, the Quebec Superior Court has held that documents prepared by an employee in the normal course of his or her duties can not be considered privileged, as such circumstances do not meet the dominant purpose criterion.

Furthermore, where a party asserts litigation privilege over documents with dual or multiple purposes, they must take great care to establish that the litigation is the dominant purpose in any evidence they provide in support of their claims.

The Court of Appeal cautiously agreed that the purposes were not by definition independent, but stated, that, in any event, it was incumbent on the joint liquidators to establish that the two purposes were not independent of each other (and therefore that litigation was the dominant purpose) in the case of particular documents, which they had not done, and therefore the assertion got them no further.

In determining that Jones's affidavit fell short of establishing the claim to privilege, the judge noted that the affidavit did not make reference to any documents in support of its assertions as to dominant purpose.

In particular Alcon has been ordered to produce various documents to the Commissioner regarding allegations they have abused their dominant position by «Product Switching» that disrupted the «supply of Patanol for the purpose of deterring the entry of generic [in particular Apotex] versions of Patanol» (Federal Court File No.