In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff brought a motion to amend his Reply to remove references to having received and relied upon legal advice regarding the interpretation of a termination clause in his employment contract.
The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing it constituted an attempt to withdraw admissions and sought a declaration that the plaintiff had waived solicitor‑client privilege over the legal advice.
The court held that the pleaded statements about receiving and relying on legal advice were deliberate and unambiguous admissions.
Because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the test for withdrawing admissions under Rule 51.05—providing no evidence of inadvertence, triable issue, or absence of prejudice—the amendment was refused.
The court further found that by placing his state of mind and the legal advice received directly in issue in the pleadings, the plaintiff impliedly waived solicitor‑client privilege regarding that advice.