{"id":1166,"date":"2014-06-09T15:20:38","date_gmt":"2014-06-09T15:20:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thor.ca\/\/blog\/?p=1166"},"modified":"2014-06-09T15:20:38","modified_gmt":"2014-06-09T15:20:38","slug":"tax-court-considers-implied-waiver-of-solicitor-client-privilege","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/2014\/06\/tax-court-considers-implied-waiver-of-solicitor-client-privilege\/","title":{"rendered":"Tax Court considers implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/thor.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/2014-TCC-179.pdf\"><em>Gerbro Inc. v. The Queen<\/em><\/a>, 2014 TCC 179, the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) examined two tests for an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege: (1) when a communication between solicitor and client is legitimately \u201cbrought into issue in an action\u201d and (2) \u201cwhere the interests of fairness and consistency so dictate\u201d.\u00a0 The TCC held that neither test was met on the facts before it.\u00a0 First, a statement of fact in the relevant pleading \u2013 which referred to the company\u2019s knowledge of a proposed change in law \u2013 was not sufficient to \u201cbring legal advice into issue\u201d because the particular statement did not imply that the company intended to rely on legal advice to establish this knowledge (paragraph 54).\u00a0 Second, \u201cthe bar is set high\u201d for a court to require disclosure of legal advice based on the \u201cfairness and consistency\u201d test; the disclosure must be \u201cvital\u201d to the opposing party\u2019s ability to answer an allegation made by the party seeking to preserve the privilege (paragraphs 58-60).\u00a0 (See paragraph 50 for a general summary of all principles that may be applicable to an implied waiver of privilege.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/thor.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/2014-TCC-179.pdf\"><em>Gerbro Inc. v. The Queen<\/em><\/a>, 2014 TCC 179, the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) examined two tests for an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege: (1) when a communication between solicitor and client is legitimately \u201cbrought into issue in&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corporate-tax"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thor.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}