Picciano v. Picciano: A Critical Examination
The recent judgment in Picciano v. Picciano, 2024 BCSC 2070 touches on critical aspects of solicitor-client privilege and its potential waiver in family law proceedings. Paragraphs 24 through 27 of Justice Loo’s decision focus on the legal framework governing solicitor-client privilege, the circumstances under which it may be waived, and its implications in the context of contentious family litigation.
Solicitor-Client Privilege: A Cornerstone of the Legal System
Justice Loo cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, emphasizing that solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the proper functioning of the legal system and access to justice. This privilege ensures that clients can communicate candidly with their lawyers, receiving effective legal advice while trusting that their communications remain confidential. As noted, “privilege is jealously guarded and should only be set aside in the most unusual circumstances.”
This robust protection of privilege, however, is not absolute. Courts recognize situations where a party may waive this privilege, either explicitly or implicitly.
The Principle of Waiver and “Cherry-Picking”
The case law, including F.C.A.S. v. C.E.S., , 2023 BCSC 1098 and earlier decisions, establishes that privilege may be deemed waived in situations where there is partial disclosure of privileged information or when a party references legal advice in sworn testimony. As Justice Loo explained, the policy rationale for this exception is fairness and consistency: litigants cannot selectively disclose aspects of privileged communications that favor their case while withholding the rest. This approach prevents the misuse of privilege as both a “sword and a shield.”
Justice Loo highlighted a principle commonly applied in family law disputes: if privileged materials are disclosed selectively, the entirety of the related communications must be made available to ensure transparency.
Application to the Facts of Picciano
In Picciano v. Picciano, the claimant submitted an affidavit exhibiting communications with his former counsel, which he used to argue that delays in compliance with court orders were due to his lack of knowledge. These disclosures, Justice Loo found, constituted a waiver of privilege. Specifically, the claimant’s decision to include selective email exchanges between himself and his former lawyer triggered the principle against “cherry-picking” favorable evidence.
While the claimant argued that the precedent in F.C.A.S. was distinguishable due to differences in the factual context, Justice Loo disagreed. The overarching principles concerning privilege and its waiver were deemed equally applicable to the circumstances in Picciano.
Implications of the Decision
Justice Loo’s ruling underscores the careful balance courts must maintain between protecting solicitor-client privilege and ensuring procedural fairness. In family law cases, where disputes are often emotionally charged and highly personal, the risk of misusing privileged communications for strategic advantage is significant. This decision serves as a reminder that litigants should tread cautiously when handling privileged materials, as partial disclosure may lead to unintended broader consequences.
By reinforcing the limits on selective disclosure, this judgment bolsters the integrity of privilege while ensuring that its protection is not exploited to hinder the pursuit of justice.
As family law continues to evolve, cases like Picciano illustrate the nuanced interplay between foundational legal principles and the practical realities of litigation.
For further information and other readings, visit: Maio Law’s Blog
