Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care (2008), 252 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);
422 W.A.C. 1
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Temp. Cite: [2008] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.033
Suzette F. Juman also known as Suzette McKenzie (appellant) v. Jade Kathleen Ledenko Doucette, by her litigation guardian Greg Bertram, Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police Department, Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents)
(31590; 2008 SCC 8; 2008 CSC 8)
Indexed As: Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc. et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
March 6, 2008.
Summary:
A civil action and a criminal investigation were commenced regarding a child’s injuries while in the care of a daycare worker. The worker provided discovery evidence in the civil action, which was subsequently settled. The discovery was never entered into evidence at a trial nor its contents disclosed in open court. The worker sought an order restricting disclosure of the examination for discovery transcript. The Attorney General of British Columbia, supported by the Vancouver police, sought to vary the implied undertaking of confidentiality regarding discovery evidence to allow disclosure to police.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2005] B.C.T.C. 400, concluded that discovery evidence that disclosed criminal conduct was subject to the undertaking. The court declared that the Attorney General and the police were under an obligation not to cause any of the parties to violate their undertaking of confidentiality. The Attorney General appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 227 B.C.A.C. 140; 374 W.A.C. 140, allowed the appeal, setting aside the declaration. The implied undertaking did not preclude the parties from disclosing the worker’s evidence to the police in good faith for the purpose of assisting the police in their criminal investigation. The Attorney General and the police could obtain the worker’s discovery evidence by lawful investigative means, including subpoenas and search warrants. The worker appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.
Practice – Topic 4157
Discovery – General principles – Collateral use of discovery information (implied or deemed undertaking rule) – A civil action and a criminal investigation were commenced regarding a child’s injuries while in the care of a daycare worker – The worker provided discovery evidence in the civil action, which was subsequently settled – The discovery was never entered into evidence at a trial nor its contents disclosed in open court – The Attorney General of British Columbia, supported by the Vancouver police, applied for an order to permit any person in lawful possession of the discovery transcript to provide a copy to the police or to the Attorney General to assist in the criminal investigation and prosecution of any criminal offence that might have occurred – The chambers judge dismissed the application – The appeal court allowed the Attorney General’s appeal, indicating that the implied undertaking of confidentiality regarding discovery evidence did not preclude the parties from disclosing the worker’s evidence to the police in good faith for the purpose of assisting the police in their criminal investigation – The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the worker’s appeal – The court agreed with the chambers judge that the Attorney General’s application should be rejected – The application’s purpose was to sidestep the worker’s silence in the face of police investigation of her conduct – The authorities should not be able to obtain indirectly a transcript that they were unable to obtain directly through a search warrant in the ordinary way because they lacked the grounds to justify it – See paragraph 58.
Cases Noticed:
Hunt v. T & N plc – see Hunt v. Atlas Turner Inc. et al.
Hunt v. Atlas Turner Inc. et al. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 94; 96 W.A.C. 94; 4 B.C.L.R.(3d) 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
Ross v. Henriques et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 766; 2007 BCSC 1381, refd to. [para. 20].
Lac d’Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 743; 274 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 20].
Stickney v. Trusz (1973), 2 O.R.(2d) 469 (H.C.), affd. (1974), 3 O.R.(2d) 538 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1974), 3 O.R.(2d) 538 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1974] S.C.R. xii, refd to. [para. 20].
Tricontinental Investments Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 614 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].
Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].
MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609, dist. [para. 21].
Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, dist. [para. 21].
Slavutych v. Baker – see Slavutych v. University of Alberta.
Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, refd to. [para. 25].
Kyuquot Logging Ltd. v. British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. (1986), 5 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
Home Office v. Harman, [1983] 1 A.C. 280 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].
Shaw Estate v. Oldroyd – see Walker v. Oldroyd.
Walker v. Oldroyd, [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 470; 2007 BCSC 866, refd to. [para. 27].
Rayman Investments and Management Inc. v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 208; 2007 BCSC 384, refd to. [para. 27].
Wilson v. McCoy, [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 507; 59 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2006 BCSC 1011, refd to. [para. 27].
Laxton Holdings Ltd. v. Madill – see Laxton Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Lloyd’s of London, Non-Marine Underwriters et al.
Laxton Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Lloyd’s of London, Non-Marine Underwriters et al., [1987] 3 W.W.R. 570; 56 Sask.R. (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].
Blake v. Hudson’s Bay Co., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 176 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].
755568 Ontario Ltd. v. Linchris Homes Ltd. (1990), 1 O.R.(3d) 649 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].
Rocca Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. University Press of New Brunswick Ltd. and Crowther (1989), 103 N.B.R.(2d) 224; 259 A.P.R. 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].
Eli Lilly and Co. et al. v. Interpharm Inc. et al. (1993), 161 N.R. 137 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].
Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc. (1986), 785 F.2d 1108 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 28].
Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 613 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Crest Homes Ltd. v. Marks et al., [1987] 2 All E.R. 1074; 93 N.R. 256 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].
Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].
Lac Minerals Ltd. v. New Cinch Uranium Ltd. (1985), 50 O.R.(2d) 260 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
Miller (Ed) Sales & Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al. (1988), 90 A.R. 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Harris v. Sweet et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. Uned. 444; 2005 BCSC 998 (Master), refd to. [para. 35].
Scuzzy Creek Hydro & Power Inc. et al. v. Tercon Contractors Ltd. et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. F81; 27 C.P.C.(4th) 252 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1990), 39 F.T.R. 43; 33 C.P.R.(3d) 49 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 36].
Livent Inc. v. Drabinsky et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 235; 53 O.R.(3d) 126 (Sup. Ct.), agreed with [para. 36].
R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Nedelcu (M.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 463; 41 C.P.C.(6th) 357 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].
Rank Film Distributors Ltd. v. Video Information Centre, [1982] A.C. 380 (H.L.), dist. [para. 46].
Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 47].
R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 47].
Gibraltar (Attorney General) v. May, [1999] 1 W.L.R. 998 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Bank of Crete S.A. v. Koskotas (No. 2), [1992] 1 W.L.R. 919 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 47].
Sybron Corp. v. Barclays Bank plc, [1985] 1 Ch. 299, refd to. [para. 47].
Bailey v. Australian Broadcasting Corp., [1995] 1 Qd. R. 476 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].
Commonwealth v. Temwood Holdings Pty., [2001] WASC 282; 25 W.A.R. 31, refd to. [para. 47].
Perrin v. Beninger et al., [2004] O.T.C. 485 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 48].
Tyler v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 2 F.C. 68; 120 N.R. 140 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 54].
R. v. Serendip Physiotherapy Clinic et al. (2004), 192 O.A.C. 71; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Laskin, John B., The Implied Undertaking (October 19, 1991), pp. 36 to 40 [para. 28].
Papile, Cristiano, The Implied Undertaking Revisited (2006), 32 Adv. Q. 190, pp. 194, 195, 196 [para. 27].
Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Civil Procedure Encyclopedia (2003), vol. 2, p. 42-36 ff. [para. 27].
Counsel:
Brian T. Ross and Karen L. Weslowski, for the appellant;
No one appeared for the respondent, Jade Kathleen Ledenko Doucette, by her litigation guardian, Greg Bertram;
Karen F.W. Liang, for the respondent, the Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police Department;
Michael H. Morris, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;
J. Edward Gouge, Q.C., and Natalie Hepburn Barnes, for the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Solicitors of Record:
Miller Thomson, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
City of Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, the Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police Department;
Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;
Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia.
This appeal was heard on November 15, 2007, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 6, 2008, Binnie, J., delivered the following judgment of the court in both official languages.
