Settlement privilege protects documents created for settlement purposes, but there are exceptions
The Alberta Court of King's Bench has ruled that the plaintiff must disclose settlement documents from a previous motor vehicle accident despite the plaintiff's claim of privilege.
The dispute in Mo'Allim v Gallant, 2024 ABKB 368, stemmed from a case involving two separate motor vehicle accidents (MVA), one in September 2018 and another in January 2020. The defendants argued that the injuries from both incidents were indivisible.
The plaintiff commenced legal action for the 2018 MVA in July 2020 and for the 2020 MVA in December 2020. The latter action was settled, but the defendants sought details of this settlement in the first action, arguing it was relevant to the ongoing case.
An initial order required the plaintiff to produce a supplemental affidavit, including diagnostic and treatment records from the second action. However, the plaintiff resisted providing the settlement documents, citing settlement privilege. The defendants countered that the injuries claimed in both actions were so intertwined that details of the settlement were crucial to avoid potential double recovery.
In the first action, the plaintiff claimed multiple injuries, including to the neck, shoulders, back, head, and arm, along with psychological impacts like anxiety and insomnia. Similar claims were made in the second action, with additional injuries such as jaw and hip injuries, spinal fractures, and chronic pain. The plaintiff’s medical reports indicated overlapping injuries from both accidents, reinforcing the defendants’ argument for indivisibility.
Citing previous cases, the court noted that settlement privilege generally protects documents created for settlement purposes. However, exceptions exist, such as preventing double recovery, which was relevant in this case.
The Court of King’s Bench emphasized that while the trial judge would ultimately decide the indivisibility of injuries, the defendants’ claim made the settlement documents potentially relevant. The court decided that disclosing these documents before the trial’s conclusion was necessary to ensure a just disposition.
The court ordered the plaintiff to provide the requested settlement documents from the second action. This disclosure aims to allow a fair assessment of the damages and prevent double recovery.
