What is the burden to establish that an otherwise relevant document is privileged?

The burden to establish that an otherwise relevant document is privileged rests with the party claiming the privilege. In Creaser v. Warren (1987), 77 N.S.R. (2d) 429, 1987 CarswellNS 150 (S.C.A.D.), the court said, at paras. 11‑13: Subsections (2) and (3) of Civil Procedure Rule 20.01 provide: (2) A list of documents under paragraph (1) shall enumerate the documents in a convenient order with a short description of each document or, in the case of bundles of documents of the same nature, of each bundle. (3) A claim that any document is privileged from production shall be made in the list of documents with a sufficient statement of the grounds of the privilege. In our opinion, this Rule is not to be interpreted in such a way that, because documents are bundled, they are therefore exempt from "a short description of each document". The description need not be so detailed that it discloses the contents of the document in a manner that would destroy its privilege. It must be sufficient to enable a court to make a prima facie decision whether a likely claim for privilege exists. Whether a judge goes beyond the description to examine the document is, of course, in the discretion of the court. It is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule for every document. However, the description of each document or series of similar type documents should have sufficient detail to reveal the nature of the documents to the opposing party and to avoid the necessity of frequent applications to the court for rulings.