Canada: What's The Deal With Privilege?

Last Updated: February 1 2017
Article by John Sorensen

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018


The Federal Court of Canada ("FC") judgment in Minister of National Revenue v. Iggillis Holdings Inc. and Ian Gillis (2016 FC 1352) ("Iggillis") is a recent and important decision concerning common interest privilege ("CIP") – also known as deal/advisory or "allied lawyer" privilege.  CIP is likely a misnomer, since it is not a separate privilege, but rather an exception to the general rule that disclosure of otherwise privileged information to a third party results in a waiver of privilege.  The CIP exception to waiver is intended to apply when privileged legal advice is shared amongst parties who share a common goal or seek a common outcome (for previous FC authority in a tax context, see Pitney Bowes of Canada Ltd v. R (2003 FCT 214) ("Pitney Bowes")). 

While the FC affirmed that deal/advisory CIP was an established component of solicitor-client privilege ("SCP")1 supported by copious case law, it was swayed by a recent academic article and US case, concluding that deal/advisory CIP is contentious because it evolved under a cloud of confusion with joint client privilege ("JCP")2 and litigation privilege.3The FC rejected deal/advisory CIP and adopted a restrictive approach inconsistent with not only with well-established CIP case law, but recent Supreme Court of Canada guidance affirming the quasi-constitutional strength of SCP.  It is a perplexing result in the sense that Canadian case law was disregarded in favour of a piece of writing from an American law professor, Grace Giesel, and a US case.  While in the short term the FC judgment may have ramifications for transactional work and the free exchange of information between lawyers, the judgment is under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA"), so the last chapter on deal/advisory CIP has yet to be written. 

Briefly putting the case in context: the Minister of National Revenue ("Minister") served requirements for information on the respondents pursuant to ss. 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) ("ITA"), which sought copies of a document defined in the judgment as "Abacus Memo" or "Memo" and which the respondents refused to turn over.  The refusal to disclose the Abacus Memo led to the Minister bringing a compliance order application.  Abacus Capital Corporations Mergers and Acquisitions ("Abacus") intervened and argued the Memo was subject to SCP.  The Abacus Memo described the sale of shares of the respondents' corporations (including pre and post sale transaction steps) and the application of the ITA to the steps.  The FC noted that counsel for both sides of the transaction consulted regarding tax consequences, including through email and on telephone calls.  By way of example, the FC cited how counsel worked together to resolve an issue concerning taxation of dividends, which solution affected the structure of the transactions.  The communications culminated in the Abacus Memo.  Absent from the communications between counsel was any express client request for advice. 

Principles summarized

The judgment has something for everyone.  It is lengthy and includes a law and economics theory of privilege, which may entertain academics.  However, practitioners need to know the principles that may be extracted, which were summarized near the end of the judgment.

"[298] Advisory CIP is not a valid constituent form of SCP and therefore has no application to the facts of this case for the following reasons:

  1. Advisory CIP was incorrectly accepted in both the United States and Canada based upon a misapprehension that it was supported by similar rationales and purposes said to support joint client privilege and litigation privilege, when they bear no relation to advisory CIP.
  2. JCP is a valid form of SCP, while CIP is not.
  3. Litigation CIP is compatible with litigation privilege based on a shared adversarial purpose. However, litigation privilege is distinct from SCP. The primary function of SCP is to maintain the solicitor-client relationship without which the administration of justice cannot function. It is not rationalized as serving any adversarial purpose. For that reason neither ligation privilege nor litigation CIP shares any functional compatibility with advisory CIP.
  4. Not only does advisory CIP not conform to the fundamental tenets of SCP, it is incompatible with them. Indeed, its application guts SCP of its purpose and function. The ad hoc rationales said to justify advisory CIP, such as it being an exception or defence to waiver, a form of selective waiver, or supported by an expectation of confidentiality, must be rejected because they eviscerate SCP of its purpose and function.
  5. Advisory CIP provides no benefit to the administration of justice in either enhancing compliance or maintaining the solicitor-client relationship, while significantly adding to its costs. Advisory CIP significantly expands the quantity of relevant evidence that is denied to the courts. It is not available to most users of advisory legal services and unfairly disadvantages them at trial. Furthermore, it provides an increased potential for abuse, while undermining the administration of justice by predominantly enabling transactions that anticipate creating litigation.
  6. External policy factors relating to the use of SCP, such as advisory CIP providing economic and social benefits to society by fostering commercial transactions are incompatible with SCP, which is limited to factors affecting the administration of justice.
  7. Resort to external policies represents an attempted case-by-case justification of a SCP which is incompatible with the class of SCP. Advisory CIP as a case-by-case justification of privilege requires the demonstration on a balance of probabilities to be of such unequivocal importance to society that it demands protection.
  8. The claimed policy benefit of advisory CIP of enabling commercial transactions is entirely speculative, and more likely represents a cost to society by the fact that advisory CIP mostly enables transactions that anticipate litigation which undermine the administration of justice, or are otherwise of no, or harmful value to society.

The prior jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Canada, namely the Pitney Bowes decision, is not binding on this Court. Pitney Bowes is distinguishable as it was a matter involving joint client representation, not allied lawyer CIP. The Court in Pitney Bowes also applied unsound jurisprudence from other Canadian and American courts that relied on the false external policy factor of advisory CIP fostering commercial transactions and unsupportable expectations of confidentiality."

Impact for practitioners

In the short term, practitioners should beware of the risk that disclosure of privileged communications to other advisors in a deal context may result in a privilege waiver.  Until the appeal is decided by the FCA, the outcome of any similar FC compliance order applications may be uncertain.  Both Pitney Bowes and Iggillis are decisions emanating from the same level of Court and neither is binding in future cases.  Thus, the likelihood that another FC judge would follow Iggillis is an open question.  This uncertainty militates towards a cautious approach to disclosure for the time being.

Other aspects of Iggillis

Litigation privilege

Mercifully, the FC did not wholly adopt Professor Giesel's rejection of CIP:  litigation CIP survived.  In the FC's view, and relying on Blank v. Canada (2006 SCC 39), litigation privilege and SCP are fundamentally different and the sharing of information between lawyers representing different clients is consistent with the doctrinal basis for litigation privilege:  while litigation privilege protects litigation strategies in adversarial process, SCP protects the solicitor-client relationship.  Confidentiality is "intrinsic and essential" to litigation strategy. 

Tax advising

Other than the endorsement of CIP in a litigation context, another somewhat bright spot in Iggillis was the FC's rejection of the Minister's argument that tax planning communications (including a lawyer's advice) are never privileged, based on Canada v. Revcon Oilfield Constructors Inc (2015 FC 524) ("Revcon").  Few practitioners interpreted Revcon as standing for the proposition that tax advice from a lawyer was not privileged and that weak argument was doomed to fail in Iggillis.  Similarly, the FC appropriately rejected the Minister's argument that the Abacus Memo was not legal advice, but rather business advice, since it obviously included legal advice. 

On the other hand, the FC suggested that deal/advisory CIP facilitates high-risk transactions and protects information that could show non-compliance with the law. In this regard, the FC's views regrettably seem infected by popular misunderstandings of tax planning.  The judgment states that "CIP will also enable commercial transactions that are of questionable legality given the purposes they are put to. ... They may involve placing wealth off shore, or estate planning of wealthy persons ... The transactions require the employment of lawyers ... who excel at navigating the complexity and opacity of their legal world or of international treaties and arcane points of law that abound there.  The schemes may resort to shell corporations, offshore trusts, and other legal constructs such as bankruptcies or cross-border protections that require secrecy of their advisory communications in order to be concluded. Like this matter, there is little or no economic reality to these transactions, nor any benefit to society."  With respect,  "placing wealth offshore" is quite alright if the owner complies with the law, estate planning is not obviously of "questionable legality", and the FC's reference to tax planning synonymously with opacity, arcane laws, shell corporations and a lack of economic reality suggests that the Court may have been prejudiced by misunderstandings typically within the domain of media outlets. 


Iggillis may warm the heart of professors for its reliance on an academic paper over well-established case law and for its lengthy theoretical analysis, but may also make the blood of tax practitioners run cold and chill the appropriate sharing of information between lawyers in the short term.


1. SCP is well understood as protecting communications between a lawyer and client that occur for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice, which communications are intended to be confidential.  Disclosing privileged information to third parties typically constitutes a waiver of privilege (unless, for example, the limited waiver doctrine is supportable).

2. JCP protects communications when two or more clients are represented by the same lawyer (for example, two clients on the same side of a piece of litigation or defendants in a prosecution).

3. Litigation privilege is a rule of evidence that protects from disclosure in Court any documents or communications generated for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions