Dryer, J.:—Many of the paragraphs of the affidavit of Archie Frank Hale do not meet the requirements of M.R. 523 and I have consequently disregarded them. Some paragraphs of the affidavit are statements of inferences drawn by the deponent from matters said to have been observed by him, most of which matters are not set forth in the affidavit. These also I have disregarded. I have also disregarded Ex. 17 to that affidavit since the affidavit does not show the relationship of Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart to any of the parties.
There is, however, sufficient acceptable material before me to provide a prima facie case in support of the allegation in paragraph 10(a) of the said affidavit and I therefore hold that all documents in the files designed to put into effect or give effect to the relationship therein referred to are not privileged. I will hereafter call this relationship the ‘‘ Romar relationship’’. As to a prima facie case being sufficient, see In Re Income Tax and Milner August 15, 1968 XII 81/66.
In deciding whether, apart from the foregoing, any documents are privileged, I have applied the principles which I set forth in reasons for judgment given August 26, 1968 in In Re Income Tax Act and Edward Evans et al. X 613/68. At the conclusion of the hearing I asked counsel to go through the files and eliminate any documents which were obviously not privileged. This has not been done.
The documents submitted to be consist of the following :
1. A statement of receipts and disbursements.
This is not privileged.
2. A file marked ‘‘A 4366A Modern Film Distributors re Italy ’ ’.
3. A file marked ‘‘A 4366B Modern Film Distributors re Taiwan”.
4. A file marked ‘‘A 4366B Modern Film Distributors re England’’.
Most of the documents in the three last mentioned files are outside the solicitor-client privilege. There are some solicitorclient communications and some, what appear to be solicitor’s memos, but none of those are privileged by reason of the Romar relationship.
5. A file marked ‘‘ A 6854 Berti to Andrus’’.
This file is not affected by the Romar relationship. It contains some solicitor’s memos and drafts which are privileged and a number of documents such as a deed, correspondence with third persons, land registry documents, and a tax notice which are not privileged.
6. A file marked ‘‘A 4366 Andrus v. Andrus’’.
The only solicitor-client communication on this file is a letter to R. B. Andrews. This is not affected by the Romar relationship and is privileged. The remainder of the file is not privileged.
7. A file marked ‘‘A 1051 Romar Films Documents’’.
The file contains agreements and copies of agreements between Romar Films Ltd. and Modern Film Distributors, A.T.A. Trading Corporation and Modern Film Distributors, A.T.A. Trading Corporation and. Romar Films Ltd., and Floyd Lewis Attractions and Romar Films Ltd., and some correspondence between these firms. None of these are privileged in any event. It also contains what appear to be drafts and solicitor’s memos which by reason of the Romar relationship I hold to be not privileged.
8. An envelope containing eight cheques and a debit memo which, by reason of the Romar relationship are not privileged.
9. A file marked ‘‘A 1051 Romar Films Ltd.”.
This file consists for the most part of documents that are not solicitor-client communications and are therefore not privileged. There are some such communications, and some solicitor’s memos, which are not privileged because of the Romar relationship.
There is also some correspondence with an Ottawa firm of solicitors who appear to be agents of the solicitor and some solicitor’s memos and a letter from the client which do not appear to be affected by the Romar relationship. These are privileged.
10. A file marked ‘‘A 4866 Modern Film Distributors Ltd.’’.
This file consists for the most part of documents that are not solicitor-client communications and are therefore not privileged. There are some such communications which are not. privileged because of the Romar relationship. There is also a memo in handwriting which does not appear to be affected by the Romar relationship and which may be a solicitor-client communication or a solicitor’s memo, but since I do not know if that is so, and since the person claiming the privilege must establish it, I must hold it to be not privileged. I have placed it on top of the nonprivileged portion of the file.
There are also some solicitor-client communications, including communications with agents, and some solicitor’s memos, all of which appear to be not affected by the Romar relationship. These are privileged.
11. A ledger sheet.
This is not privileged.
12. A statement of receipts and disbursements.
This is not privileged.
13. Corporation Record Book of Modern Film Distributors Ltd.
This is not privileged.
14. A file marked ‘‘A 1051A Ro-Mar Films Ltd. re Bob and Sally’’.
There are no solicitor-client communications on this file and none of it is privileged.
15. A file marked “A 1051 Ro-Mar Films, Contracts Only’’.
Most of the documents on this file are not solicitor-client communications and are therefore not privileged. There are some solicitor’s memos which appear to relate to the Romar relationship. These are not privileged.
There are some solicitor’s memos and one solicitor-client communication with enclosures which do not appear to be connected with the Romar relationship. These are privileged.
16. An envelope containing a file marked “A 4875 R. B. Andrus and Mrs. R. B. Andrus and Modern Film Distributors Ltd.’’.
This file contains a great many documents which are not solicitor-client communications such as court documents, correspondence with third parties, and a marriage certificate, which are not privileged.
It also contains a number of solicitor-client communications including material obtained by the solicitor for the purposes of litigation and solicitor’s memos, none of which appear to be connected with the Romar relationship. These are privileged.
I have placed all the documents held to be privileged in envelopes marked “Privileged” and those held to be not privileged in envelopes marked ‘‘Not Privileged”. Those marked “Privileged” are to be returned to Messrs. Harper, Gilmour and Company, and the others to be turned over to Mr. Jackson.
It is apparent that in this case the solicitors, on behalf of their clients, claimed privileged in respect of their entire files. I suggest that such a claim should only be made in respect of documents which may be covered by the privilege relating to solicitor-client communications, including that relating to the privacy of the solicitor’s preparation. It should not be necessary for the court to go through hundreds of documents in respect of which no claim of privilege could possibly succeed. Making such clearly unfounded claims of privilege can only reduce the time available for consideration of documents in respect of which a claim for privilege might succeed.