Case information

Civil procedure — Privilege — Solicitor client privilege — Implied waiver — Abuse of process — Solicitor gives notice of action against former clients alleging clients’ public statements constitute defamation, abuse of public office, constructive dismissal and violation of constitutional rights — Solicitor seeks to disclose solicitor client privileged communications in action — Scope of implied waiver of solicitor client privilege — Potential abuse of process associated with a lawyer’s use of privileged and confidential information in legal proceeding against former client.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC)

Mr. Cameron worked as counsel for the Department of Justice of Nova Scotia as a civil litigator and made submissions as counsel of record on an appeal by the Sipekne’katik Band from a decision by the Minister of Environment. The submissions were controversial in the media and the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia. Premier Stephen McNeil and then Minister of Justice and Attorney General Diana Whalen made public statements regarding the submissions. Mr. Cameron claims their public statements implied that he did not have instructions to make the submissions. Mr. Cameron was removed from the appeal and retired from the Department of Justice. He served a Notice of Intended Action alleging defamation, abuse of public office, constructive dismissal and violation of his constitutional rights. He applied to disclose communications, advice, and information given to him as former counsel of record in the appeal, as evidence in his action. An applications judge declared the communications are solicitor client privileged but that privilege had been impliedly waived and the materials can be disclosed as evidence in Mr. Cameron’s action. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.