Carter v Dennis Family Corporation

The case before the court involved a dispute between Carter and Dennis Family Corporation. The plaintiff, Carter, sought to establish legal professional privilege over certain documents in the context of a wrongful dismissal claim. The matter was heard in a lower court, and the decision is now being reviewed. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim legal professional privilege over certain documents, specifically draft reports prepared for the directors of Dennis Family Corporation prior to Carter's dismissal, and whether the cross-examination of the deponent of affidavits in support of the claim for privilege was permissible.

The court examined the nature of the documents in question and the circumstances under which they were created. The plaintiff argued that the draft reports were prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and as such, should be protected by legal professional privilege. The defendant, Dennis Family Corporation, contended that the privilege did not apply because the documents were not created for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. The court considered the established principles of legal professional privilege and whether the draft reports were created for the dominant purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the draft reports were not protected by legal professional privilege because they were not created for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. The court held that the documents were prepared in the ordinary course of the defendant's business and were not intended to seek legal advice but rather to inform the directors of the company's position. Furthermore, the court ruled that cross-examination of the deponent of the affidavits in support of the claim for privilege was permissible, as the deponent was not a party to the proceedings and the issues raised did not require their personal knowledge or expertise. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for legal professional privilege over the draft reports.

The court's decision resulted in an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim for legal professional privilege over the draft reports and allowing the cross-examination of the deponent of the affidavits in support of the claim. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of establishing the dominant purpose test when asserting legal professional privilege and the circumstances in which cross-examination of deponents may be permitted in support of such claims.