“I recognize that the wisdom of extending litigation privilege to the preparation of expert reports has been questioned by some judges: see Browne (Litigation Guardian of) v. Lavery, (2002) 2002 CanLII 49411 (ON SC), 58 O.R. (3d) 49 (S.C.), at paras. 65-71; Aviaco International Leasing Inc. v. Boeing Canada Inc., 2002 CanLII 21293, [2002] O.J. No. 3799 (S.C.), at para. 16. However, the law currently imposes no routine obligation to produce draft expert reports: Conceicao Farms Inc. v. Zeneca Corp. (2006), 2006 CanLII 31976 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 792 (C.A.), at para. 14; Mendlowitz v. Chaing, 2011 ONSC 2341 (CanLII) (S.C.), at paras. 20-24.
It is important to note that the litigation privilege attaching to expert reports is qualified, and disclosure may be required in certain situations.
The most obvious qualification is that the Rules of Civil Procedure require disclosure of the opinion of an expert witness before trial. If a party intends to call the expert as a witness at trial, rule 31.06(3) entitles the opposite party on oral discovery to “obtain disclosure of the findings, opinions and conclusions of an expert engaged by or on behalf of the party being examined”.
As well, the party who intends to call the expert witness is required to disclose the expert’s report and the other information mandated by rule 53.03(2.1). The result is that what has been called “the foundational information” for the opinion must be disclosed: Conceicao Farms, at para. 14. Bryant, Lederman and Fuerst refer to this as an “implied waiver” of privilege over the facts underlying an expert’s opinion that results from calling the expert as a witness: Alan W. Bryant, Sidney N. Lederman and Michelle K. Fuerst, Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada, 4th ed. (Markham: LexisNexis Canada, 2014), at para. 14.220. These authors favour restricting the implied waiver “to material relating to formulation of the expressed opinion” (at para. 14.224). They state that caution should be exercised before requiring “wide-ranging disclosure of all solicitor-expert communications and drafts of reports”, as such a practice could encourage “a general practice among solicitors of destroying drafts after they are no longer needed just to avoid the problem” (at para. 14.226).
The second qualification is that, as stated in Blank, at para. 37, “litigation privilege, unlike the solicitor-client privilege, is neither absolute in scope nor permanent in duration.” Litigation privilege yields where required to meet the ends of justice, and “[i]t is not a black hole from which evidence of one’s own misconduct can never be exposed to the light of day”: Blank, at para. 44.
In my view, the ends of justice do not permit litigation privilege to be used to shield improper conduct. As I have already mentioned, it is common ground on this appeal that it is wrong for counsel to interfere with an expert’s duties of independence and objectivity. Where the party seeking production of draft reports or notes of discussions between counsel and an expert can show reasonable grounds to suspect that counsel communicated with an expert witness in a manner likely to interfere with the expert witness’s duties of independence and objectivity, the court can order disclosure of such discussions. See, for example, Ebrahim v. Continental Precious Minerals Inc., 2012 ONSC 1123 (CanLII) (S.C.), at paras. 63-75, where the court ordered disclosure of draft reports and affidavits after an expert witness testified that he did not draft the report or affidavit containing his expert opinion and admitted that his firm had an ongoing commercial relationship with the party calling him.
Absent a factual foundation to support a reasonable suspicion that counsel improperly influenced the expert, a party should not be allowed to demand production of draft reports or notes of interactions between counsel and an expert witness. Evidence of an hour and a half conference call plainly does not meet the threshold of constituting a factual foundation for an allegation of improper influence. In my view, the trial judge erred in law by stating that all changes in the reports of expert witnesses should be routinely documented and disclosed. She should not have ordered the production of Dr. Taylor’s drafts and notes.”