2 total
The court dismissed the defendants' motions to remove the plaintiffs' counsel and compel production of privileged file materials.
The defendants brought motions seeking to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Julian Falconer and Falconers LLP, and for the production of portions of their file concerning advice given to plaintiff Bradley Blair regarding a complaint to the Ombudsman and a related judicial review application.
The defendants argued that counsel was a potential witness, an "unsworn witness" or had a conflict of interest based on a duty of loyalty, and that solicitor-client privilege had been waived.
The court dismissed both motions, finding no deemed waiver of privilege, no likelihood of counsel being a material witness, no "unsworn witness" concern given the nature of prior interactions, and no duty of loyalty conflict.
Summonses to examine opposing counsel quashed for non-compliance, lack of necessity, and abuse of process.
The defendant brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the plaintiffs, which sought to examine two of the defendant's lawyers on pending interlocutory motions regarding the sale of jointly owned property.
The court quashed the summonses on three grounds: failure to comply with service requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to demonstrate that the lawyers' evidence was relevant and necessary, and abuse of process.
The court found the summonses were issued for ulterior purposes, including gathering evidence for a separate action against the lawyers and attempting to create a conflict of interest to preclude them from acting as counsel.
