2 total
The court dismissed the parents' motion for disclosure of surveillance records, citing litigation privilege.
The respondent parents brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the Children's Services society, along with copies of all correspondence, retainer agreements, and exchanges between the society and investigators since November 2012.
The parents alleged they had observed unknown persons conducting surveillance of their home and taking photographs.
The society claimed litigation privilege over the surveillance materials.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the society has a broad disclosure obligation under Stinchcombe principles, litigation privilege protects work product prepared in contemplation of litigation, including surveillance conducted for litigation purposes that has not been relied upon as evidence.
Motion for disclosure of private investigator records dismissed as protected by litigation privilege.
The respondent mother brought a motion for an order requiring the applicant child protection agency to disclose the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the agency, along with correspondence and retainer agreements.
The mother alleged she was being surveilled.
The agency relied on litigation privilege and did not file affidavit material.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that surveillance materials are protected by litigation privilege unless the agency intends to rely on them as evidence.
Since the agency had not listed any surveillance witnesses for trial, the surveillance was not part of the case the parents had to meet, and disclosure was not required.
