Big Suits | 33
Rothstein, LSM,
Linda R.
Paliare Roland Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP
(416) 646-4327
linda.rothstein@
paliareroland.com
Ms. Rothstein's civil and
administrative practice
focuses on class actions,
commercial litigation,
professional liability,
public law, employment
and human rights,
judicial reviews and
appeals. She is also a
mediator and arbitrator.
Saint-Onge,
AdE, Jean
Lavery, de Billy, L.L.P.
(514) 877-2938
jsaintonge@lavery.ca
Mr. Saint-Onge's
practice focuses on
class actions, product
liability, competition
and environmental law.
He has represented
major corporations in
multijurisdictional, cross-
border class actions;
Fellow, Litigation Counsel
of America.
Sarabia, Luis G.
Davies Ward Phillips &
Vineberg LLP
(416) 367-6961
lsarabia@dwpv.com
Mr. Sarabia acts as
counsel in leading class
actions, change-of-
control litigation and
international arbitrations.
He has signifi cant
expertise in securities
cases and in international
mining litigation often
involving Spanish-
speaking parties.
Royce, Michael E.
Lenczner Slaght Royce
Smith Griffi n LLP
(416) 865-3970
mroyce@litigate.com
Mr. Royce focuses on
medical malpractice,
where he represents
physicians in the courts at
various levels, and before
professional tribunals and
disciplinary proceedings.
His practice also
includes an emphasis on
commercial litigation.
Sali, QC, Lenard M.
Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP
(403) 232-9701
lsali@blg.com
Mr. Sali's experience
extends to commercial,
energy and securities
litigation, as well as
telecommunications law,
oil and gas law, and D&O
liability. He appears at all
levels of court and before
regulatory tribunals,
including the ERSB.
Schabas, Paul B.
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP
(416) 863-4274
paul.schabas@blakes.com
Mr. Schabas handles
complex litigation
and arbitrations.
He has expertise in
media, commercial,
tax, regulatory,
anti-corruption and
constitutional law, and
has argued many leading
cases in the Supreme
Court.
LEXPERT®Ranked Lawyers
e SCC held that provinces have the authority to infringe
treaty harvesting rights if the infringement can be justifi ed
under s. 35 of the Act in accordance with the test established
by the SCC in the cases R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Badger.
Robert Janes and Elin Sigurdson of JFK Law Corpora-
tion represented the appellants Andrew Keewatin Jr. and Jo-
seph William Fobister, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all other members of the Grassy Narrows First Nation.
Bruce McIvor and Kathryn Buttery of First Peoples Law
Corporation represented the appellant Leslie Cameron, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Wa-
bauskang First Nation.
Michael Stephenson, Peter Lemmond, Mark Crow and
Christine Perruzza of the Attorney General of Ontario rep-
resented the respondent the Minister of Natural Resources.
Christopher Matthews of Aird & Berlis LLP represented
the respondent Resolute FP Canada Inc. (which was former-
ly Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.).
Mark Kindrachuk and Mitchell Taylor of the Attorney
General of Canada represented the respondent the Attor-
ney General of Canada.
omas Isaac of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and
William Burden, Linda Knol, Brian Dominique and Erin
Craddock of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP represented
the respondent Goldcorp Inc.
For a full list of counsel for the interveners, visit ow.ly/Df31J
WEBASTO PRODUCT V. SHASTA
EQUITIES
AND LORNE SHANDRO
DECISION DATE: MAY 22, 2014
A Federal Court action was commenced following an Octo-
ber13, 2009, fi re on a moored pleasure boat. e fi re spread
to surrounding vessels and marina. e insurance broker for
the pleasure boat became aware of the fi re almost immedi-
ately and contacted a marine surveyor and a fi re investigator.
He retained legal counsel. e respondents claimed litiga-
tion privilege over documents generated by the surveyor,
investigator and an adjuster.
e appellants fi led a motion challenging the claim of
privilege. e Prothonotary applied the two-part test for
litigation privilege and ordered most of the documents be
produced. e Respondent appealed.
e Motions Judge allowed the Appeal with the excep-
tion of one document. Although both parties proceeded on
the basis that the Prothonotary's decision was discretionary,
the Motions Judge held that it was not and declined to ap-
ply the standard of review applicable to discretionary orders.
e Motions Judge added that if the order was discretion-
ary, he would have determined that the potential eff ect of
the order was vital to the issue in the case, saying the issue
was "not whether production of the documents is vital to the
outcome of the case, but rather whether it is vital to our fun-
damental sense of justice."
On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the ap-
peal, in part. e stated issue on appeal was "Did the Motions
Judge err by setting aside the Prothonotary's decision?" Set-
ting out the general principles relating to a claim for litigation
privilege, the Court then reviewed each of the documents in
dispute to address whether there were grounds for the Mo-
tions Judge to interfere with the Prothonotary's decision. e
Court declined to make a fi nding on the correctness of the
Motion Judge's fundamental sense of judgment comment.
ere are three notable points in the decision: First, the
Court held that, at the outset, while there may have been a
