The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant's officer to answer questions and fulfill undertakings refused during an examination for discovery.
The appellant had refused to answer primarily on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, relevance, and that the questions called for contractual interpretation.
The Tax Court of Canada allowed the motion in part, ordering the appellant to answer questions regarding factual matters and relevance, but upheld the refusal to answer questions that would require the disclosure of privileged legal advice, finding no implied waiver of privilege.
