Risa M. Kirshblum

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendant physician moved for production of three expert reports obtained by the plaintiff's former solicitors in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The court determined the reports were subject to litigation privilege, not solicitor-client privilege, and that the plaintiff had implicitly waived this privilege by commencing the solicitor's negligence action and failing to challenge the former solicitor's defence pleading, which referenced these reports as central to denying negligence.

The motion for production was granted.

The Plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion seeking leave to admit an expert's affidavit and discovery transcripts of two family members (one deceased, one unwell) into evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the request to admit the expert's affidavit, finding it did not comply with Rule 53 requirements for expert reports and would unfairly deprive the defence of cross-examination.

However, the court granted leave to admit the discovery transcripts of the family members under Rule 31.11(6), subject to the Plaintiffs immediately quantifying their Family Law Act claims and providing the family doctor's notes for the relevant period to the defence, to ensure fairness given the inability of the family members to testify.

The appellant, RBC Dominion Securities, sued its former branch manager and several investment advisors who left en masse to join a competitor, Merrill Lynch.

The trial judge found the branch manager breached his implied contractual duty of good faith by orchestrating the departure, and awarded substantial damages for loss of profits.

The trial judge also awarded damages against the investment advisors for unfair competition during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal overturned these awards.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the damages against the branch manager for breach of good faith, but upholding the Court of Appeal's decision that the investment advisors were not liable for unfair competition during the notice period.

The appellants appealed an order interpreting Articles 5 and 8.09 of a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act plan of compromise.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's interpretation was reasonable, fostered a fair and efficient administration of the plan, and was entitled to deference given his familiarity with the complex negotiating process.

A claim for rectification advanced for the first time on appeal was also dismissed for lack of an evidentiary basis.