3 total
The court declined the Attorney General's request to reconsider a mid-trial ruling on solicitor-client privilege.
The Attorney General of Canada sought to reconsider a mid-trial ruling on solicitor-client privilege, requesting leave to file a new affidavit to support their claim.
The plaintiffs opposed this request.
The court declined to exercise its discretion to revisit the ruling, emphasizing the importance of finality in trial proceedings and noting that the issue had been fully argued previously.
The Attorney General was directed to forthwith produce the unredacted documents as per the original ruling.
Mid-trial motion on discovery read-ins resolved; late read-ins violating Browne v. Dunn excluded.
During a complex commercial trial, an evidentiary dispute arose regarding the reading in of examination for discovery transcripts under Rule 31.11.
The defendant sought to introduce additional excerpts from its own witnesses' discoveries to qualify the plaintiffs' read-ins, and also sought to read in discovery evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses who had already testified.
The court allowed some of the qualifying read-ins that directly explained the original answers but excluded others.
The court largely dismissed the defendant's request to read in the plaintiffs' discovery evidence, finding that doing so after the witnesses had testified without putting the evidence to them in cross-examination violated the rule in Browne v. Dunn and caused trial unfairness.
Mid-trial challenge to solicitor-client privilege over government documents partially succeeds; policy discussions referencing legal risks are not privileged.
During a complex commercial trial involving the auction of wireless spectrum licences, the plaintiffs challenged the defendant's assertion of solicitor-client privilege over redacted portions of nine documents.
The defendant argued the challenge required leave under Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial.
The court held that a trial judge has broad discretion to order production of non-privileged documents at any time under Rule 30.04(5) without leave, but would have granted leave in the interests of justice regardless.
After inspecting the unredacted documents, the court found that while some redactions properly protected legal advice, others merely reflected policy discussions or operational decisions that referenced legal risks, which do not attract privilege.
The defendant was ordered to produce the improperly redacted portions.
