The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed by the defendant in support of her pending anti-SLAPP motion.
The underlying action involves claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office against a municipal councillor.
The court applied the test for relevance on a motion, balancing the scope of the anti-SLAPP motion with the principle of proportionality.
The court ordered the defendant to answer certain narrowed questions regarding her communications with third parties and the police, but dismissed overbroad requests and upheld solicitor-client privilege regarding a non-party lawyer's communications.
