Sarah Shana Bedard

The defendants, John and Elaine Wright, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Laura Burley's, claim against them.

Burley had slipped and fallen on a municipal sidewalk adjacent to the Wrights' apartment building, where she was a tenant.

The City of Ottawa admitted responsibility for the sidewalk.

The court found that the Wrights did not owe a common law duty to maintain the municipal sidewalk, were not "occupiers" under the Occupiers' Liability Act, had no common law duty to warn about public sidewalk conditions, and no implied contractual duty to maintain the sidewalk or provide direct passage through the building.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing Burley's action against the Wrights.

The City's crossclaim against the Wrights was also dismissed by consent.

The plaintiff initiated three actions stemming from a motor vehicle accident: a tort claim, an underinsured motorist claim, and a solicitor's negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The defendants moved to consolidate the actions and for a broad waiver of solicitor-client privilege and the deemed undertaking rule.

The court ordered the actions to be tried together or one after the other, at the discretion of the trial judge.

It denied the broad waiver of solicitor-client privilege and the deemed undertaking rule for information from the solicitor's negligence action for use in the other two actions, emphasizing the importance of privilege.

However, it dispensed with the deemed undertaking rule for information from the tort and OPCF actions for use in the solicitor's negligence action, and between the tort and OPCF actions.

The defendants in three related actions (a tort action, an OPCF underinsured motorist action, and a solicitor's negligence action) brought motions to consolidate the proceedings or have them heard together, and to dispense with the deemed undertaking rule.

The plaintiff opposed the inclusion of the solicitor's negligence action and the waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The court ordered that the three actions be tried together or one after the other, subject to the trial judge's discretion.

However, the court held that the plaintiff's waiver of solicitor-client privilege applied only to the solicitor's negligence action and refused to dispense with the deemed undertaking rule for evidence obtained in that action, protecting the plaintiff's privilege in the tort and OPCF actions.