Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sued four lawyers for breach of confidence over the disclosure of a settlement email.

• The email proposed dropping civil and criminal matters in exchange for a monetary payment.

• Court found the email was not protected by settlement privilege due to threats and unambiguous impropriety.

• Disclosure to the Crown was justified under the “full answer and defence” exception to privilege.

• No reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the lawyers, especially those who did not share the email with the Crown.

• The claim was struck without leave to amend due to legal deficiencies that could not be cured.

Civil claim against lawyers dismissed for disclosing contentious settlement email

Facts of the case

Tiffany Longarini, a self-represented litigant, brought a civil action against four lawyers—Evan Rankin, Matthew Marshall, Thomas David Marshall, and Lauren Wilhelm—alleging a breach of confidence. The claim arose from the disclosure of a July 26, 2024 email in which Longarini proposed a settlement to resolve multiple legal disputes involving her and Jack Huitema, a co-director and shareholder in a corporation they both managed.

The email was shared among the lawyers representing Huitema in different matters: the Marshalls in a civil oppression and defamation case, and Wilhelm in a criminal sexual assault case brought by Longarini against Huitema. The settlement email offered to withdraw “all legal matters,” including the criminal charges, in exchange for $2.3 million and full releases from all parties.

Wilhelm disclosed the email to the Crown prosecutor handling the sexual assault charges. The Crown later withdrew the charges, citing the email as a significant factor in assessing the credibility of the allegations and the complainant's motivations. Longarini claimed that the disclosure caused her reputational harm and emotional distress and weakened her position in related litigation.

Outcome and legal analysis

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion to strike the claim, asserting that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Justice Bordin reviewed the content and purpose of the settlement email and concluded that it was not protected by settlement privilege. The court found that the email crossed the threshold of “unambiguous impropriety,” containing egregious threats to add opposing counsel to various legal actions and a demand for money in exchange for dropping criminal charges. Such content, the court held, voids any claim to settlement privilege.

Further, even if settlement privilege had applied, the disclosure fell within a well-recognized exception: enabling an accused to make full answer and defence. The court affirmed that this Charter-protected right can override even class privileges like settlement privilege. Wilhelm, as Huitema’s lawyer, had a fiduciary duty to act in his defence and was not at fault for sharing the email with the Crown.

No actionable wrongdoing was attributed to the other lawyers. Rankin and the Marshalls were recipients of the email in their capacity as legal counsel, and the claim contained no factual allegation that they disclosed the email to the Crown. Consequently, there was no basis for a finding of misuse or liability.

The court also held that Longarini suffered no legal detriment in the sense required by breach of confidence. The withdrawal of criminal charges, which are prosecuted on behalf of the state and not the complainant, cannot legally constitute personal harm. The plaintiff’s claims of emotional damage and reputational loss were characterized as speculative and unsupported by material facts.

Given these findings, the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend. The court concluded that there were no additional facts that could be pleaded to cure the legal deficiencies of the claim. The decision underscores the high threshold for establishing a breach of confidence and the limited scope of settlement privilege, especially when confronted with improper conduct and competing Charter rights.