36410  Matthew John Anthony-Cook v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law – Sentencing – Joint submission on sentencing rejected – What test should a sentencing judge apply in deciding whether to accept or reject a joint sentencing submission.

On appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The applicant was charged with manslaughter. He was detained in both a jail and in a mental health facility prior to his mid-trial guilty plea and sentencing. The Crown and defence had made a joint submission that the appropriate sentence was a period of 18 months’ additional incarceration, and that no probation order should be imposed. The sentencing judge determined that the period of imprisonment should be three years, apart from a credit for pre-sentence custody. The judge sentenced the applicant to an additional 24 months less a day imprisonment (with credit for 366 days in pre-sentence custody). The judge also imposed a three year probationary term, the terms of which included that the applicant refrains from using illegal substances. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

36373   Karine Lizotte, in her capacity as assistant syndic of the Chambre de l'assurance de dommages v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Traders General Insurance Company

Immunities and privileges – Litigation privilege – Insurance

On appeal from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal. For the purposes of an ethics inquiry against a claims adjuster employed by the respondent, the syndic of the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages requested documents concerning the claims adjuster from the respondent under s. 337 of the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services. The respondent removed certain documents from the documentation provided in order to take account of litigation privilege and lawyer‑client privilege. The syndic applied to the Superior Court for a declaratory judgment to determine whether the respondent could refuse to disclose the documents covered by those privileges. The Quebec Superior Court held that professional secrecy and litigation privilege could be raised against syndic of Chambre de l’assurance de dommages. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, changed the wording of the conclusion, but held that professional secrecy and litigation privilege could still be raised against syndic of Chambre de l’assurance de dommages.