CHAPTER 11
PRIVILEGE
I. Introduction .....................................................
II. General Principles Relating to Class Privilege and Case-by-Case Privilege ...
III. Solicitor–Client Privilege...........................................
A. Rationale .....................................................
B. Constitutional Dimensions ......................................
C. Scope........................................................
. A Communication Between Solicitor and Client ................
. The Communication Must Involve the Seeking of Legal Advice ...
. Intention to Maintain Confidentiality ..........................
D. Duration .....................................................
E. Exceptions ...................................................
. Waiver ....................................................
(A) Placing Reliance on Legal Advice That Has Been Received ....
(B) Lawyer Testifies as a Witness on the Client’s Behalf ..........
(C) Allegations of Misconduct, Incompetence, or Ineffective
Assistanceof Counsel ...................................
. Innocence at Stake .........................................
(A) Threshold Issues ........................................
(B) The Innocence at Stake Test for Solicitor–Client Privilege.....
(C) Consequences of a Successful Application .................
. Communications That Are Criminal in Nature or in Furtherance
ofaCrime .................................................
. Risk to Public Safety ........................................
(A) Is There a Clear Risk to an Identifiable Person or Group
of Persons?.............................................
(B) Is There a Risk of Serious Bodily Harm or Death? ............
(C) Is the Danger Imminent? .................................
. Privilege Is Abrogated by Statute..............................
IV. Litigation Privilege ................................................
A. Rationale .....................................................
B. Scope........................................................
C. Exceptions ...................................................
481
Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.
I. INTRODUCTION
Privilege is an exclusionar y rule of evidence with unique features. Its purpose is to main-
tain the confidentiality of cer tain communications or information where the public inter-
est is sufficiently compelling. Privilege recognizes that certain confidential relationships
create an expectation of privacy. Where one p arty to a relationship is professi onally,
legally, or ethically obliged to maintain confi dentiality, the other parties wil l reasonably
presume that privacy is their ri ght. However, not all privacy rights engaged in confidential
relationships will be secured by pri vilege, because confidenti ality and privilege are dis-
tinct concepts. Information or communications that are confidential are not necessarily
privileged.1 This exceptional status is rese rved for a subset of confidential information.
Historically, privilege existed only as an exclusion ary rule of evidence that operated
in the context of a court proceeding. It rend ered certain confidential commun ications
or information inadmissible, such th at a witness could refuse to answer question s that
engaged a privilege d topic, and other evidence protected by privilege would be exclud-
ed.2 Privilege is unconcerne d with the reliability, relevance, or materiality of the evidence
1 Rv Robillard, 2000 C anLII 6756, 151 CCC (3d) 296 at pa ra 32 (Qc CA).
2 Rv Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278 at para 16 [Nguyen 2015], leave to appe al to SCC refused, [2015] SCCA No 3 65.
V. Settlement Privilege ...............................................
A. Rationale .....................................................
B. Scope........................................................
C. Exceptions ...................................................
VI. Spousal Privilege..................................................
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Rationale and Scope ...........................................
. A Testimonial Privilege Held by the Recipient Spouse ............
. Must Be Married at the Time of the Communication
andtheTestimony..........................................
. Protects Communications Only ..............................
. The Communications Must Be Private .........................
C. Jury Instructions ..............................................
VII. Public Interest Privilege or Immunity.................................
A. The Common Law Rule ........................................
B. The Statutory Framework in the Canada Evidence Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VIII. Confidential Informant Privilege ....................................
A. Rationale .....................................................
B. Scope........................................................
C. The Sole Exception: Innocence at Stake ..........................
D. In Camera Hearing ............................................
E. Defence Investigation of Confidential Informants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IX. Summary ........................................................
482 MODERN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.
to the proceeding and therefore does not enh ance truth seeking. Instead, highly p ro-
bative evidence may be excluded in favour of interest s that are entirely detached from
the proceeding.3 This makes privilege a potent rule of evidence. For some c ategories
of privilege the need to also p rotect substantive interest s outside of litigation has been
recognized.4 While some of this exp ansion is addressed, the focus of this chapter is on
privilege as a rule of evidence.
The law of privilege is prin cipled, but in a different way than other area s of evidence
law. The law of privilege is about qu estions of policy rather than proof. Some evidentiar y
rules facilitate truth by excluding evidence that is unre liable or that may prejudice or
mislead. Privilege is an exclusiona ry rule that does the opposite. It inhibits the pursuit of
the truth in order to protect interests and relati onships of great social import ance. The
search for the truth yields to extrinsic po licy. The principled approach to the law of privil-
ege is not about quality of evi dence but about resolving competing values. A s Prof Cross
says, “The crucial que stion is whether there is some interest p rotected by the privilege
which is at least as significant as the p roper administration of justice.”5 Historically, the
philosophy behind the law of pri vilege is utilitarian; the law wants to foster communica-
tions in particular relation ships. Truth is suppressed for a greater pub lic good.
II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO CLASS PRIVILEGE
AND CASE-BY-CASE PRIVILEGE
There are significant distincti ons between claims that fall within a cl ass privilege as
compared to privilege identifie d through a case-by-case evaluation. Where communi-
cations or information meet the require d criteria for a class privilege, they are presumed
to be privileged and therefore ina dmissible. There is no balan cing of competing inter-
ests. Instead, the presum ption is only set aside if there is a defined exception to the priv-
ilege.6 Solicitor–client, spousal, an d informant privilege are well-establi shed examples
of class privilege.7 It is not neces sary for the privilege h older to positively assert their
claim in order for privilege to materialize—it exist s automatically.8 Class privileges have
equal effect in criminal an d civil matters, and are reserved for confidential relatio nships
over which there is a need for certaint y, rather than flexibil ity, in the approach to privil-
ege. This ensures that those relati onships that are the most entitled to privilege enjoy a
higher degree of confidence in the p rotections it affords.9
Privilege may also be recognized on a c ase-by-case basis where th e circumstances
warrant that shield but the confidentia l communications do not fall into a recognized
3 Rv National Post, 2010 SCC 16 at para 42; Rv Coutur e, 2007 SCC 28 at para 62.
4 Alberta (Information an d Privacy Commissione r) v University of Calgar y, 2016 SCC 53 at para 44.
5 Rupert Cross, Cross on Evidence, 3rd ed (London: Butter worths, 1967), at 226 -27, as cited in Re Slavutych and
Board of Governo rs of the Universit y of Alberta, 1973 ALTASCAD 59 (Can LII), [1973] AJ No 178 (QL ) at para 36 (CA).
6 Rv Gruenke, [1991] 3 SCR 263 at 286; L izotte v Aviva Insurance Company of Can ada, 2016 SCC 52 at
paras33, 37, 39.
7 Rv McClure, 2001 SCC 14 at para 28 .
8 Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v C anada (Attorney Genera l); White, Ottenheimer & Baker v Ca nada (Attorney
General); Rv Fink, 2002 SCC 61 at para 39.
9 LLA v AB, [1995] 4 SCR 536 at para 39; Rv Barros, 201 1 SCC 51 at para 30; Lizotte, supra note 6 at para 40.
Chapter 11 Privilege 483
Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.
