On November 29th, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held that a party must voluntarily inject into the litigation legal advice it received or its understanding of the law before waiver of solicitor-client privilege can be implied. It is not enough, according to the Court, for the privilege holder’s state of mind to be relevant. The Court therefore held that a party had not waived privilege over legal advice obtained that related to a misrepresentation by another that it pleaded it had reasonably relied upon.
All About information
A legal blog about privacy and access to information, protection of confidential business information, libel and slander and the law of production.
- The Australian “Ben Grubb” decision and its link to Canada
- ONSC awards $15,000 in privacy damages
- Newfoundland court says salary information not accessible to public
- NLCA holds that implied undertaking does not apply to medical report
- Arbitrator admits surreptitious audio recording
- Arbitrator says reference to record in opening statement does not extinguish implied undertaking
- BCCA discusses redaction of information from otherwise relevant documents
- BCCA issues decision on implied waiver of privilege
- SCC issues decision lending weight to litigation privilege
- SCC deals blow to privacy commissioner powers – privilege reigns supreme
Posts. The views expressed here are solely the authors' and should not be attributed to Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP or its clients. The material and information provided on this website are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information linked or referred to or contained herein. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog, without first retaining counsel and obtaining appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or Hicks Morley. The authors act only on behalf of management. They welcome management-side inquires, but interested persons should not send any information about their matters to the authors in initial communications and before they have had a chance to complete a conflict check. Comments. Comments published on this site do not reflect the views of the authors or Hicks Morley.