Kaiser (Re), 2012 ONCA 838
[30] From these developments in the jurisprudence, I take the law to be that administrative information relating to the solicitor-client relationship -- including the identity of the person paying the lawyer's bills -- is presumptively privileged. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing (a) that there is no reasonable possibility that disclosure of the requested information will [page317] lead, directly or indirectly, to the revelation of confidential solicitor-client communications (Maranda, at para. 34; and Ontario (Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner), at para. 9); or (b) that the requested information is not linked to the merits of the case and its disclosure would not prejudice the client (Cunningham, at paras. 30-31).
[44] Finally, given my conclusion that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons articulated above, there is no basis to order that Mr. Kaiser's lawyer be required to disclose the information as well. I observe, however, that the courts have been very reluctant to put lawyers in the position where they are required to give evidence against their clients except in very rare cases where the proper administration of justice demands it: see R. v. 1504413 Ontario Ltd. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 122, [2008] O.J. No. 1302, 2008 ONCA 253, at para. 13; and R. v. Colbourne, 2001 CanLII 4711 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 3620, 157 C.C.C. (3d) 273 (C.A.), at para. 51. Here, there was another source of the information -- Mr. Kaiser -- had disclosure been ordered. Disposition
[45] For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order below and in its place substitute an order dismissing the trustee's motion for an order directing Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Solmon to disclose the identity of the person who paid Mr. Kaiser's legal fees in connection with the removal motion and any appeals there from, with costs.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire