Bell et al. v. Smith et al.

Bell et al. v. Smith et al.

Evidence from a former solicitor disclosing confidential client communications without proof of a proper waiver is inadmissible and a judge interviewing plaintiffs in chambers without counsel or a reporter is a serious breach of the parties' right to counsel and of judicial conduct; given these breaches and the lack...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1968] SCR 664
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Helen Bell; Plaintiff Appellant: James E. Bell; Plaintiff (infant) Appellant: David Guy Bell; Plaintiff Appellant: Marjorie Bell; Plaintiff (next Friend) Appellant: Kenneth Bell; Plaintiff Appellant: The Ontario Hospital Services Commission; Defendant Respondent: William Samuel Smith; Defendant Respondent: John William Charles Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury; Settlement Motion) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Allowing Appeal and Ordering a New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Confidentiality, Privilege Waiver, Chambers Interviews, Consent to Settlement, New Trial
Source Language
english
Evidence Civil Procedure Solicitor Client Privilege Judicial Conduct Confidentiality Privilege Waiver Chambers Interviews Consent to Settlement +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Bell

Plaintiff Appellant

James E. Bell

Plaintiff Appellant

David Guy Bell

Plaintiff (infant) Appellant

Marjorie Bell

Plaintiff Appellant

Kenneth Bell

Plaintiff (next Friend) Appellant

The Ontario Hospital Services Commission

Plaintiff Appellant

William Samuel Smith

Defendant Respondent

John William Charles Smith

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury; Settlement Motion) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Allowing Appeal and Ordering a New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a former solicitor may be required to disclose confidential client communications in the absence of a proper waiver
  2. 2 Whether interviewing plaintiffs in chambers without counsel or reporter violated their right to advice of counsel and proper judicial conduct
  3. 3 Whether the judgment purportedly based on consent was valid given conflicting evidence of consent

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence from a former solicitor disclosing confidential client communications without proof of a proper waiver is inadmissible and a judge interviewing plaintiffs in chambers without counsel or a reporter is a serious breach of the parties' right to counsel and of judicial conduct; given these breaches and the lack of an acceptable record of what occurred, the appeal must be allowed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered