Newsletters

398

Can you claim solicitor-client privilege against your own insurer?

On June 20, 2017, the Court of Appeal of Québec confirmed that an insured cannot invoke solicitor-client privilege to refuse to provide its insurers with legal opinions upon which it relied to settle a claim in which it was a defendant (Chubb Insurance Company of Canada c. Domtar inc., 2017 QCCA 1004).

In 1998, Domtar [the “Insured”] concluded a transaction with Weston in virtue of which Domtar would incur penalties if it would be subject to a takeover. Eight years later, it merged with Weyerhaeuser by way of arrangement.

Weston concluded that this triggered the penalty clause. When Domtar refused to pay, Weston filed a claim for $110 million in Ontario. After mediation, the parties agreed to a $50 million settlement.

Upon receipt of a notice of claim, after consideration, Chubb denied coverage and refused to take up Domtar’s defence.

Domtar then sued Chubb in Quebec, claiming the $50 million paid to Weston plus the costs of defending the suit in Ontario.

Domtar also alleged that the settlement with Weston was fair.

As part of the proceedings in Quebec, the parties agreed to several preliminary undertakings. Chubb requested documents, correspondence and legal opinions related to the Weston/Domtar claim. Domtar refused, claiming that these were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The trial judge agreed with Domtar’s position, ruling that a party cannot implicitly forfeit its right to raise the privilege.

All three judges of the Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion, although for different reasons: Domtar could not invoke solicitor-client privilege and had to disclose the requested documents.

Justice Schrager, with Justice Mainville concurring, was of the view that because of Domtar’s claim, the Court had to decide whether the loss was covered by the insurance policy and whether the settlement agreed upon by Domtar was fair, under the circumstances. On the basis of the “at issue” doctrine, the majority of the Court decided that the Insured’s claim was implicitly referring to privileged information which, therefore, became an issue. Since those issues had been raised by the Insured, it was barred from claiming solicitor-client privilege to deny its insurer the right to the requested documents.

On the other hand, Justice Vézina concluded that, under article 2471 C.C.Q., Domtar was required to inform Chubb of all circumstances surrounding the loss. It could not claim compensation from Chubb while denying it the right to ascertain whether the risk was covered and whether the damages paid to Weston were justified, under the circumstances. According to Justice Vézina, all documents demanded by the insurer were the core of the information that the Insured was obliged to provide.

In addition, he also considered that Domtar had waived the right to invoke solicitor-client privilege for the documents related to the arrangement since it had already disclosed these documents to Weyerhauser during the 1998 negotiations. There no longer was a secret.

The case is very important since the Court of Appeal, on the basis of the “at issue” doctrine, ruled that, when the nature of the claim involves legal advice that it received, the Insured must provide its insurer with all documents and communications pertaining to the underlying litigation for which it seeks compensation, including the opinions obtained from its lawyers. In such circumstances, an insured is barred from raising solicitor-client privilege.

398

Authors

Nick Krnjevic

Lawyer, Partner

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]