Paralegal-Client Privilege

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-24
CLNP Page ID:	2441
Page Categories:	Legal Principles
Citation:	Paralegal-Client Privilege, CLNP 2441, <https://rvt.link/e5>, retrieved on 2024-11-24
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2024/11/13

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Chancey v. Dharmadi, 2007 CanLII 28332 (ON SC)

[33] Therefore, to answer the questions posed earlier as to what is a paralegal, the answer in my view is a paralegal licensed by the Law Society to provide legal services. That would satisfy the criterion of an identifiable group. It would not include "John Doe, Paralegal" who hangs up a shingle but has not qualified for licensing, nor would it include a person who assists a friend or relative in court in responding to a provincial offences charge. Only licensed paralegals would have the benefit of any class privilege respecting paralegal-client communications.

[34] In my view, there is no principled reason why communications between a paralegal and his client should not be subject to the same class privilege as exists between a solicitor and his client. Both are subject to similar rules of conduct including obligations of confidentiality. Both are now regulated and licensed by a governing body that ensures standards of competence and imposes and enforces ethical obligations. The historical reasons for recognizing a class privilege over solicitor-client communications apply with equal vigour to paralegal-client communications. Both require full and candid communication from the client to his legal advisor to ensure competent and fair representation before the court or tribunal. The relationship and the communications between a paralegal and his client are as essential to the effective operation of the legal system as those between a solicitor and his client. Such communications are inextricably linked with the very legal system which desires the disclosure of the communication. The paralegal-client relationship, no less than the solicitor-client relationship, is a part of that system, not ancillary to it. [page626]

(...)

[39] In my view, there is no principled reason why a class privilege should not be extended to paralegal-client communications; however, it must be restricted to communications with an identifiable group, namely paralegals licensed by the Law Society. Since the paralegal with whom the defendant communicated was not a licensed paralegal, no class privilege can be said to apply. No declaration should be made at this time, on the facts of this case, with respect to the existence of a class privilege over paralegal-client communications. Such determination should be made at a time when it is supported by an appropriate factual matrix. In other words, determination of the existence of a class privilege over paralegal-client communications should be determined in a proceeding in which privilege is claimed over communications between a paralegal licensed by the Law Society and his client. I therefore decline to apply a class privilege over communications between the defendant and Mr. Kouwenhoven.