Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court ordered further document disclosure in a legal malpractice action, rejected most privilege objections, required privilege descriptions and affidavit verification, and denied a waiver declaration.
The Federal Court dismissed an Access to Information Act application, holding the Screening Document was protected by solicitor-client privilege and no waiver was shown.
On the balance of probabilities the contested document is not entirely protected by solicitor-client privilege because significant passages are business updates or operational implementation rather than legal advice and thus fall outside the protected solicitor-client continuum; only limited passages are privileged and may be redacted.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal found that for COMP.PR001 the communications were created when litigation could reasonably be apprehended and their dominant purpose was litigation preparation, and that COMP.PR003 and COMP.PR004 (Facebook messages) were obtained at counsel's direction and similarly meet the Lizotte criteria; the Council failed to rebut the presumption of privilege or establish waiver or an applicable exception, therefore the documents are protected by litigation privilege and disclosure was refused.
Source excerpt
The court addressed litigation privilege, settlement privilege, and waiver over accident-related documents and emails, ordering production only of notes made before litigation was reasonably in prospect.
The court refused to grant the broad waiver Marsh sought because Marsh failed to provide a complete, specific list of documents for which it sought relief, preventing the court from making the necessary individualized assessment; the court also held that documents disclosed in furtherance of settlement discussions were protected by settlement privilege and Marsh's request to disclose those documents was denied. The court ordered Marsh to produce a specific document list and set a timetable for submissions.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed KFN’s document-production application, finding the requested City records were not relevant to the pleaded issues and were in any event privileged.
The court found an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege where the plaintiffs relied on counsel’s advice to explain litigation delay and joinder steps.
The court ordered partial production of specified third-party police discipline records, with redactions to protect informer privilege and a nondisclosure restriction.
The Appellant was entitled to further discovery because the pleaded GAAR policy put relevant factual inquiries and internal communications into issue; documents and answers that were prepared in or consulted for the audit met the low discovery relevance threshold and had to be produced or answered subject to narrow redactions for privilege or unrelated taxpayer information; disclosure of a standalone corporate memorandum did not impliedly waive privilege over separate tax opinion memoranda, so the Respondent’s motion to compel those privileged tax opinions was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
