1.Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association, [2010] 1 SCR 815, 2010 SCC 23 (CanLII)

A stay of proceedings was ordered by the trial judge because of abusive conduct by government officials. The Ontario Provincial Police investigated the local police and the Crown attorney. It exonerated them of misconduct but did not give reasons for its decision. The Criminal Lawyers' Association (CLA) made a request under the provincialFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actfor disclosure of the records relevant to the investigation. Some of these documents contained legal advice. The legislation exempted documents subject to solicitor-client privilege from disclosure. The legislation provided for a review to determine whether a compelling public interest in disclosure outweighs the reason from the exemption, but this review did not apply to the solicitor-client exemption. The CLA claimed that its right to freedom of expression under the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedomswas breached because the solicitor-client privilege was not subject to the compelling public interest in disclosure. The Court of Appeal agreed with this position. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Should the Supreme Court reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal? Does s. 2(b) of theCharterguarantee access to all government documents? Should documents protected by solicitor-client privilege ever be disclosed because of the public interest?

2.Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Qubec, [2016] 1 SCR 336, 2016 SCC 20 (CanLII)

The Minister of National Revenue served requirements to provide documents on some notaries practising law in Quebec. The documents related to the collection of taxes from clients of the notaries. The notaries refused to provide the documents. The relevant sections of theIncome Tax Actrequired a person to provide information about a taxpayer, subject to solicitor-client privilege. The definition of the privilege excluded "accounting records of a lawyer." The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accounting records exception was clear and valid. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that the notaries did not have to provide their clients' documents.

The provisions requiring the production of the documents was found to be unconstitutional, as they apply to notaries and lawyers, as they were contrary to one of the rights protected by theCharter of Rights and Freedoms. Which one?

3.Wayne v. Wayne, 2012 ABQB 763 (CanLII)

A woman suffering from dementia sold her house for less than half its assessed value. Her son was subsequently appointed trustee of her estate. He asked for an order for production of the law firm's estate file relating to his mother, as he had concerns regarding her mental capacity at the time of the real estate transaction. The relevant legislation provided that a trustee was entitled to access collateral or other personal information about the adult he was representing "that was relevant to the exercise of the authority and the carrying out of the duties and responsibilities of the trustee." The legislation did not expressly allow for the waiving of the solicitor-client privilege of a represented adult.

Should the Court grant access to the mother's estate file of the law firm? If it should, what is the justification for piercing the solicitor-client privilege?

4.University of Alberta v. Chang, 2012 ABCA 324 (CanLII)

Two actions were dismissed because of the delay in prosecution of the actions. The decision was appealed on the ground that the chambers judge failed to engage in a meaningful analysis of the issues and failed to provide reasons that disclosed his interpretation. The reasons for judgment included nothing but paragraphs that had been copied and pasted from the briefs filed by the parties' lawyers. There was no independent authorship; even spelling mistakes in the briefs were included in the reasons. Also, the reasons included the wording "it is submitted that," which is appropriate for a party's brief but not a judicial analysis. The headings in the reasons were numbered incorrectly and were out of order. A rule was quoted twice, apparently because the judge copied from the briefs of two of the parties.

Should the Court of Appeal overturn the decision of the chambers judge and order a new trial? What presumption must be rebutted before an appellate court can overturn a decision of a lower court?