A physician sought production of confidential reference letters that allegedly blocked his appointment to active hospital staff privileges, arguing he needed them to assess potential defamation or economic tort claims and to clear his professional reputation.
The court held that a free-standing equitable action for discovery, as the modern equivalent of a bill of discovery, can coexist with the Rules of Civil Procedure and may be brought by application where no material facts are in dispute.
However, applying the Wigmore criteria, the court found the letters privileged because confidentiality was essential to candid peer review in hospital staff appointments and the public interest in preserving that process outweighed the benefit of disclosure.
The availability of a statutory route under the Public Hospitals Act to challenge the denial of privileges further weakened the case for overriding privilege.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
