Jordan Dunlop

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that certain communications with their lawyers, which were inadvertently left on the defendants' email servers after a share purchase transaction, were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiffs also sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations.

The court granted leave to file the new affidavit.

On the privilege motion, the court found that the plaintiffs' law firm did not represent the target companies during the transaction, meaning no joint privilege passed to the purchaser.

The court also held that the plaintiffs did not waive privilege by using the company email servers, as the disclosure was inadvertent and they maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court reviewed the documents and declared which ones were privileged.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute a named defendant for a 'Jane Doe' following a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed defendant initially opposed the motion but ultimately consented.

The only issue remaining was costs.

The proposed defendant argued the plaintiffs should pay costs as they were granted an indulgence.

The court rejected this, finding the plaintiffs acted with diligence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause, noting it was reasonable for the proposed defendant to initially oppose the motion.