PRACTICE |
Discovery |
Examination for Discovery |
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.
T-2799-96
Heneghan J.
31/5/00
6 pp.
Appeal from order of Prothonotary requiring respondents to answer in writing questions they refused to answer during examination for discovery of representative Marc Bertrand--Standard of review for appeal of decision of prothonotary articulated in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (C.A.)--Applicants arguing by reason of respondents' pleading of estoppel, detrimental reliance, respondents' state of mind, understanding of correspondence exchanged between parties' former solicitors put in issue--Wrong in arguing privilege waived, either directly or by implication--Paragraphs 41-44 of amended statement of defence raising defences of estoppel, detrimental reliance--State of mind not put in issue--Defences of estoppel, detrimental reliance predicated upon correspondence, not legal advice exchanged between respondents and solicitors--Therefore, no expressed, implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege--Applicants have not established decision of Prothonotary clearly wrong or Prothonotary improperly exercised discretion "on a question vital to the final issue of the case"--Motion dismissed.