2 total
Deemed undertaking rule does not apply to documents provided by a client to their own lawyer.
The appellant lawyer was sued for defamation by the opposing party in a former matrimonial proceeding.
The lawyer sought to use documents provided to him by his former client to defend the defamation action, and moved for relief from the deemed undertaking rule.
The motion judge dismissed the motion and ordered the lawyer to return the documents to his former client.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply because the documents were not obtained under the discovery rules, but rather provided by the client to her own lawyer.
The Court also set aside the order to return the documents, as neither party had requested that relief.
Indemnitors liable where lawyer’s litigation settlement found reasonable.
A lawyer sought enforcement of an indemnity agreement executed by former clients in relation to claims arising from the release of disputed trust funds.
After a third-party action was commenced against the lawyer, his professional insurer settled the claim for $100,000 and sought reimbursement under the indemnity agreement.
The respondents argued the settlement was improvident and unreasonable.
The court held that the settlement was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the uncertainty of a pending Rule 21 motion and the risks of continued litigation involving a multi‑million‑dollar claim.
The respondents were found jointly and severally liable to reimburse the amounts paid under the indemnity agreement.
