D. Zacks

The proposed defendant, Trisan, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's lawyer to answer questions refused during cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of a motion to amend the statement of claim.

The refused questions related to instructions the lawyer received from the plaintiff regarding the timing of adding Trisan as a defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions were properly refused on the basis of solicitor-client privilege and that the plaintiff's post-discovery litigation strategy was irrelevant to the application of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to correct an alleged misnomer, seeking to substitute his mother as the plaintiff after the limitation period had expired.

A previous motion to add the mother as a plaintiff had been dismissed.

The court dismissed the misnomer motion, finding that the original naming of the plaintiff was intentional and tactical, not an error.

Furthermore, the court held that the motion constituted an abuse of process because it relied on evidence that contradicted the plaintiff's position on the prior motion.