2 total
Lawyer ordered to produce redacted client financial records in discovery for a referral fee dispute.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant, a lawyer, to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery.
The underlying action involved an alleged contract where the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs a 10% referral fee for clients referred to him.
The defendant refused to answer questions and produce financial records regarding the allegedly referred clients, claiming the information was irrelevant and protected by solicitor-client privilege.
The court found the information relevant to the pleadings and held that the presumptive privilege over the financial records was rebutted, as the plaintiffs were not seeking confidential communications or evidence against the clients.
The court ordered the defendant to produce the requested financial records with any solicitor-client communications redacted.
Venue transfer motion dismissed; efficiency of motion scheduling is not a valid basis for transfer.
The defendant moved to transfer the action from Cobourg to Toronto, arguing that scheduling a summary judgment motion in Toronto would be more efficient.
The plaintiffs, who commenced the action in Cobourg near their home, opposed the transfer.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the onus under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to show that a transfer was desirable in the interest of justice.
The court noted that venue should not be changed merely to obtain more efficient motion scheduling or to queue-jump.
