The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking orders compelling a lawyer for the defendant to answer questions refused on cross-examination and granting leave to file additional affidavits in support of a pending motion to amend the statement of claim and add a proposed defendant.
The refusals were based on solicitor-client privilege.
The court held that two questions seeking factual information did not infringe solicitor-client privilege and must be answered, while a third question had already effectively been answered.
Applying Rules 1.04 and 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted leave to file three additional affidavits responding to issues raised on cross-examination and addressing limitation concerns relating to the discoverability of the plaintiffs’ claims.
