Burns v. Hall

Burns v. Hall

Master Wilson found the plaintiff did not act as client nor as an agent of transmission nor as an integral authorized representative for the defendants such that solicitor-client privilege attached; the plaintiff's role was to assist solicitors in formulating advice (not to receive or give legal advice as client), so the communications were at best subject to litigation privilege which expired when the litigation concluded; therefore the defendants' claim of enduring solicitor-client privilege over the documents failed and the application was dismissed.

Citation
2018 BCSC 968
Parties
Plaintiff (self Represented): Mark Burns; Defendant; in Capacity as Co Executor and Co Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of Coleman Hall, Deceased: Brenton C. Hall; Defendant; in Capacity as Co Executor and Co Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of Coleman Hall, Deceased: Maxwell E. Hall; Defendant: Devonshire Hall Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (breach of Contract / Quantum Meruit / Unjust Enrichment; Dispute Over Document Privilege) / Interim Application Before Master Concerning Claim of Privilege Over Documents (list of Documents Dispute)
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Privilege Over Documents, Third Party Communications, Expiry of Litigation Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Discovery and List of Documents
Source Language
English
Evidence Civil Procedure Solicitor Client Privilege Litigation Privilege Wills and Estates Contract Privilege Over Documents Third Party Communications +3 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Burns

Plaintiff (self Represented)

Brenton C. Hall

Defendant; in Capacity as Co Executor and Co Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of Coleman Hall, Deceased

Maxwell E. Hall

Defendant; in Capacity as Co Executor and Co Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of Coleman Hall, Deceased

Devonshire Hall Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (breach of Contract / Quantum Meruit / Unjust Enrichment; Dispute Over Document Privilege) / Interim Application Before Master Concerning Claim of Privilege Over Documents (list of Documents Dispute)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitor-client privilege attached to documents disclosed to a former lawyer acting as a third party/consultant
  2. 2 Whether communications with the plaintiff fall within Chrusz categories for third-party privilege (agent of transmission; integral to solicitor-client relationship)
  3. 3 Whether litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege applies and whether privilege survived the conclusion of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Master Wilson found the plaintiff did not act as client nor as an agent of transmission nor as an integral authorized representative for the defendants such that solicitor-client privilege attached; the plaintiff's role was to assist solicitors in formulating advice (not to receive or give legal advice as client), so the communications were at best subject to litigation privilege which expired when the litigation concluded; therefore the defendants' claim of enduring solicitor-client privilege over the documents failed and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for an order requiring the plaintiff to amend his list of documents by moving the disputed documents to Part 4 (privileged documents) is dismissed.