Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

The Tribunal dismissed Bell Canada's motion and held that the Commission may assert settlement privilege over the GNWT reports and that the Commission's claims of privilege for the CPC-1 and CPC-2 materials were not shown to have been waived; Bell's reliance on Stinchcombe was a misapplication because the criminal Crown disclosure doctrine does not extinguish available privileges in this Tribunal context.

Citation
2005 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada; Femmes-Action; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Bell Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (human Rights) / Ruling on Disclosure/privilege Motion (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; production of Dr. Shillington's GNWT, CPC-1 and CPC-2 reports not ordered.
Legal Topics
Settlement Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Disclosure Obligations, Expert Evidence, Waiver of Privilege
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Evidence Privilege Law Labour Law Settlement Privilege Litigation Privilege Disclosure Obligations Expert Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada; Femmes-Action

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Bell Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (human Rights) / Ruling on Disclosure/privilege Motion (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission can withhold expert reports of Dr. Shillington on the basis of settlement privilege (GNWT reports)
  2. 2 Whether the Commission can assert litigation privilege over CPC-1 and CPC-2 reports
  3. 3 Whether the Commission waived any privilege by sharing materials with PSAC or by public dissemination of the settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed Bell Canada's motion and held that the Commission may assert settlement privilege over the GNWT reports and that the Commission's claims of privilege for the CPC-1 and CPC-2 materials were not shown to have been waived; Bell's reliance on Stinchcombe was a misapplication because the criminal Crown disclosure doctrine does not extinguish available privileges in this Tribunal context.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; production of Dr. Shillington's GNWT, CPC-1 and CPC-2 reports not ordered.

Orders

  • Bell Canada's motion seeking production of Dr. Shillington's reports (GNWT, CPC-1, CPC-2) is dismissed