Raymond v. Peters First Nation

Raymond v. Peters First Nation

Motion granted in part: communications and discussions involving Peters First Nation’s legal counsel in the context of legal advice are protected by solicitor-client privilege and cannot be the subject of the researcher’s testimony; however, the researcher’s independent factual research, records, observations and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 CHRT 94
Parties
Complainant: Patricia Raymond; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Peters First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Motion to Exclude Evidence on Grounds of Solicitor Client Privilege (ruling)
Outcome
Motion allowed in part: testimony excluded only insofar as it concerns communications with Peters First Nation’s legal counsel in the context of legal advice; otherwise privilege does not apply to the researcher’s work.
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Third Party Communications, Admissibility of Evidence, Membership Decision Processes
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Evidence Privacy Indigenous Law Human Rights Law Solicitor Client Privilege Waiver of Privilege Third Party Communications +2 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Raymond

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Peters First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Motion to Exclude Evidence on Grounds of Solicitor Client Privilege (ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitor-client privilege applies to communications and materials produced by a non-lawyer researcher retained by Peters First Nation
  2. 2 Whether privilege may be extended to third-party communications under Chrusz criteria
  3. 3 Whether the communications constituted seeking or giving of legal advice

Ratio Decidendi

Motion granted in part: communications and discussions involving Peters First Nation’s legal counsel in the context of legal advice are protected by solicitor-client privilege and cannot be the subject of the researcher’s testimony; however, the researcher’s independent factual research, records, observations and communications with Chief and Council outside counsel are not privileged because he was not a mere conduit nor employed primarily to obtain legal advice, confidentiality was not established for most material, and public prior testimony indicated lack of privilege for much of the subject matter.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part: testimony excluded only insofar as it concerns communications with Peters First Nation’s legal counsel in the context of legal advice; otherwise privilege does not apply to the researcher’s work.

Orders

  • Prohibit witness Andrew Genaille from testifying about discussions he had or participated in with Peters First Nation’s legal counsel, whether written or oral, where counsel was providing legal advice to Peters First Nation.
  • Permit Mr. Genaille to testify about his independent research, factual findings, records, and discussions with Chief and Council outside the presence of legal counsel, including those from the 2012–2013 membership application process.