Vander Laan v. LSMR Developments Inc.

Vander Laan v. LSMR Developments Inc.

The master applied the correct legal test and, on the evidence (including that the report was commissioned after action commenced on solicitor advice to determine liability and damages), properly concluded the dominant purpose was to aid litigation; that factual finding was open to the master and not clearly wrong, so the appeal is dismissed and the report remains privileged.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1936
Parties
Plaintiff: Lubbert Vander Laan; Plaintiff: Anne Vander Laan; Defendant: LSMR Developments Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Wedler Engineering Ltd.; Defendant: Columbia Drillings & Contracting Ltd.; Defendant: Lang Structural Engineering Inc.; Defendant: William H. Louwerse (aka Bill Louwerse)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence / Property Damage / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Decision on Privilege
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; master's order upholding litigation privilege is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Dominant Purpose Test, Expert Reports, Standard of Review on Appeal From Master
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Tort Discovery Litigation Privilege Dominant Purpose Test Expert Reports Standard of Review on Appeal From Master

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lubbert Vander Laan

Plaintiff

Anne Vander Laan

Plaintiff

LSMR Developments Inc.

Defendant

Wedler Engineering Ltd.

Defendant (appellant)

Columbia Drillings & Contracting Ltd.

Defendant

Lang Structural Engineering Inc.

Defendant

William H. Louwerse (aka Bill Louwerse)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence / Property Damage / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Decision on Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the House Settlement Report was protected by litigation privilege
  2. 2 Whether the dominant purpose for preparing the report was litigation rather than investigation
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of appellate review for a master's interlocutory factual finding

Ratio Decidendi

The master applied the correct legal test and, on the evidence (including that the report was commissioned after action commenced on solicitor advice to determine liability and damages), properly concluded the dominant purpose was to aid litigation; that factual finding was open to the master and not clearly wrong, so the appeal is dismissed and the report remains privileged.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; master's order upholding litigation privilege is affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Master's order finding the House Settlement Report privileged is upheld.