Q.B.G. A.D. J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: AGRI RESOURCE MGT. 2001 LTD. RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF) and SASKATCHEWAN CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION APPLICANT (DEFENDANT) J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: AGRI RESOURCE MGT. 2001 LTD. RESPONDENT (PLAINTIFF) and SASKATCHEWAN CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION APPLICANT (DEFENDANT) J.P. Ellson for Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation M.W. Milani for Agri Resource Mgt. 2001 Ltd. JUDGMENT KYLE J. February 16, 1996 The applicant seeks to have the firm, RobertsonStromberg, barred from acting for the plaintiff by reason ofMs. Schirr, a member of that firm, having been active inrepresenting the defendant, a Crown corporation, during theyears prior to 1991 when the defendant changed lawyersfollowing a change of government in Saskatchewan. This action was commenced after the change of solicitors and there is no suggestion that the subject matter of the action, the contractual issues giving rise to the cause of action, were ever the subject of any consultation between the defendant and its former solicitors. In 1993 in a similar application respecting anothermember of the same firm I ruled against the plaintiff. In sodoing I was being consistent with a prior ruling involving asimilar attempt to displace the applicant\'s present solicitorsfrom certain litigation then existing following the 1982change of government. It has been argued by the plaintiff that the situation in this case is exactly the same as that previously decided because Mr. Willner, the subject of the previous application, and Ms. Schirr, the present target, were partners or associates at all material times and if ruled in favour of the plaintiff then must do so now as all knowledge of one is for these purposes attributed to the other. This point is well taken and might well provide the basis for dismissal of the plaintiff's motion. (Other arguments have been raised, however, and propose to deal with them.) Much is made bythe applicant of the confidential nature of its adjusting andinvestigation of loss claims and internal policy proceduresand litigation strategies in relation to the denial of claims. By such reference to strategy counsel seems to suggest that the company has such litigation strategy and internal policies and procedures of confidential nature that is, one which could not be deduced from the pleadings and examinations for discovery by any competent lawyer. review of the file herein suggests that no such confidential strategy exists. The only identifiable strategy (or perhaps tactic) adopted to date has been excessive delay requiring applications to force compliance with the Rules and two applications, including this one, to deprive the plaintiff of its chosen legal representation. In the earlier application decried the tendency to use applications of this sort as harassment technique. As noted in that decision, once it is determined that there is no actual knowledge of the case in question and that there could be no actual knowledge by reason of the matter in question having arisen after the change of solicitors, the onus to establish the existence of confidential information justifying the requested order shifts to the party asserting the concern. went on to say Obviously, the information itself cannot be disclosed, however, it is reasonable to insist that the nature of the information be disclosed. For example, had Mr. Willner participated in an action factually similar to the present one, such that he was privy to the corporation's strategy in dealing with the matter or its willingness to settle and if he were aware of its response to his advice, then he might well be possessed of confidential information sufficient to disqualify him in this case. No such allegation has been made. Counsel for the applicant asserts that such is the situation in this case, perhaps because of Ms. Schirr's more extensive involvement in the litigation side of the applicant's affairs. The cases referred to, however, involved simply the construction of the statute and the regulations under it, as well as the statutory form of contract, all of which are public documents. As the applicant is a public corporation itis doubtful that it has or should have secret strategies withwhich to defeat persons claiming under its insurance scheme. It is, of course, entitled to have its own preordainedpolicies in respect of disputed claims and these may well havecome to the attention of the solicitors in this case, but ifsuch policies exist they probably should be made known to thepublic for whose benefit the applicant corporation exists. As well, such policies may well have changed since 1992. Therefore, for all of the reasons expressed in myjudgment of October 15, 1993, as well as those set forthherein, the application is dismissed with costs to therespondent in any event of the cause.
The applicant sought to have the law firm barred from acting for the plaintiff because a member of that firm had been active in representing the defendant prior to 1991 when the defendant changed lawyers following a change in government. This action was commenced after the change of solicitors and there was no suggestion that the subject matter of the action was ever the subject of any consultation between the defendant and its former solicitors. The applicant raised arguments about the confidential nature of its adjusting and investigation of loss claims and internal policy procedures and litigation strategies in relation to the denial of claims. HELD: The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent in any event of the cause. 1)In 1993 in a similar application respecting another member of the same law firm the judge ruled against the plaintiff. This was consistent with a similar attempt following the 1982 change of government.  2)The only identifiable strategy (or perhaps a tactic) adopted to date has been excessive delay requiring applications to force compliance with the Rules and two applications to deprive the plaintiff of its chosen legal representation. 3)Once it is determined that there is no actual knowledge of the case in question the onus to establish the existence of confidential information shifts to the party asserting the concern. 4)As the applicant is a public corporation it is doubtful it has or should have secret strategies with which to defeat persons claiming under its insurance scheme. It is entitled to have its own preordained policies in respect of disputed claims but if such policies exist they probably should be made known to the public for whose benefit the corporation exists. Also such policies may well have changed since 1992.