Simon Zucker

The plaintiffs sued the defendant lawyers for negligent misrepresentation, alleging they relied on the lawyers' confirmation that a financing condition had been met.

During discovery, the plaintiffs refused to answer questions about the legal advice they received from their own counsel regarding the alleged confirmation.

The motion judge ordered the plaintiffs to answer the questions, finding they had waived solicitor-client privilege by placing their state of mind and reliance in issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that fairness and consistency required disclosure of the legal advice to allow the defendants to adequately defend against the reliance claim.

In this family law proceeding, the moving party sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from an order imposing conditions that had to be satisfied before a long motion to vary final support orders could proceed.

The responding party sought security for costs and additional conditions, and argued that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

Applying the jurisprudence distinguishing final from interlocutory orders, the court held that the order remained interlocutory notwithstanding that non-compliance could result in a permanent stay.

Because an appeal of an interlocutory order to this court was meritless, the extension motion was refused, the related motion became moot, and costs were fixed at $24,000 all inclusive.