Cynthia Mackenzie

The applicant brought a motion for leave to examine the respondent's former counsel and for production of the counsel's file, arguing the respondent waived solicitor-client privilege during cross-examination.

The underlying dispute involved the respondent's refusal to discharge a vendor take-back mortgage, which allegedly caused the applicant damages.

The court found the respondent waived privilege by putting its instructions to counsel in issue.

Applying the First Capital test, the court granted leave to examine the former counsel under Rules 39.02(2) and 39.03, finding the evidence relevant to the assessment of damages and that the applicant had no prior notice of the respondent's position.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an advance interim payment of $22,000 for expert valuation costs, disclosure of various corporate financial documents, and an order for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the request for a section 30 assessment due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court ordered partial disclosure of the requested financial documents, limiting the scope based on proportionality and the burden on the respondent's business.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to pay an advance of $10,000 under Rule 24(12) to assist the applicant with expert valuation costs, finding the requested $22,000 excessive.