ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Estate Planning

: Toronto Estate Law Blog

Rule 39 and Solicitors as Witnesses

By Hull & Hull LLP

ADVERTISEMENTS

Yesterday, my blog touched on the use of Rule 39.03 to examine non-party witnesses before the hearing of a pending motion or application.  As noted, Rule 39.03 can be used to summons solicitors to give relevant evidence about a deceased former client in estate litigation proceedings. However, given the special relationship between a solicitor and his/her client, it is always good practice to obtain a court order in advance which directs a solicitor to attend an examination and waives confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege over any evidence provided.  As demonstrated by a recent case, Rule 39.03 is not a carte blanche to examine solicitors about former clients.


In Nieweglowski Estate (Re) 2009 Canlii 13033 (On. S.C.), Justice Strathy held that a solicitor is entitled to the protection of a court order before being examined as a witness pursuant to Rule 39.03.  The case involved estate litigation over Mr. Nieweglowski's Will and a property transfer made by him before his death.  Further to a prior court order, the solicitor who had assisted Mr. Nieweglowski produced his files regarding the matters.  However, the court order did not provide for the solicitor's examination. The solicitor was then subpoenaed to give evidence pursuant to Rule 39.03.  Although the solicitor attended at his examination, he refused to give evidence. The ground for his objection was the absence of any express provision in the first court order. The party that had subpoenaed the solicitor moved before Justice Strathy for an order that the solicitor provide his evidence and that he be personally responsible for the costs of the first aborted examination.

Justice Strathy refused to order costs against the solicitor. His Honour held that it was not unreasonable for the solicitor to insist upon a court order directing him to attend an examination and provide evidence about privileged communications with a former client.  Accordingly, Justice Strathy ordered that the solicitor was entitled to provide his evidence regarding matters that would otherwise be privileged or confidential.

Have a great day!

Bianca La Neve
 

Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on May 21, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0227 secs (from cache 10/31/26 12:52:17)