Withdrawal of portion of affidavit not permitted so as to avoid cross-examination

Ontario civil | Civil Procedure

AFFIDAVITS

Withdrawal of portion of affidavit not permitted so as to avoid cross-examination

Dissatisfied shareholders attended traded corporation’s annual general meeting (“AGM”) with proxies purportedly sufficient to reject management’s proposed slate of directors. Corporation’s transfer agent disallowed proxies to extent quorum requirements of corporation’s by-law not met. Corporation and shareholders commenced proceedings, including for oppression remedies. Cross-examinations on affidavits conducted. One shareholder’s affidavit included statement he “received legal advice to that effect”. Corporation alleged shareholder voluntarily waived privilege, and demanded production of documents relating to legal advice to applicants. Shareholder moved to withdraw portion of affidavit. Withdrawal motion denied. Language intentionally included. No inadvertence, mistake or oversight. Withdrawal not permitted so as to avoid cross-examination. Corporation’s production demand allowed. Obvious waiver of privilege. Shareholder had legal advice available when swore affidavit. No unfairness in holding affiant to what sworn. Corporation’s production demand beyond scope of disputed paragraph. Shareholder ordered to re-attend for further cross-examination. Thirty-minute time-limit imposed. Corporation’s motion to compel answers to questions about proxies submitted to AGM denied. Corporation’s motion to compel answers to questions about shareholder’s investment portfolio and business transactions denied. Corporation’s motion to compel answers to questions about shareholder’ alleged joint action with individual regarding corporation and other investments individual denied. Individual let out of application. Allegations related only to corporation, not other investments. Shareholders’ motion to compel production of individual’s employment agreement denied. Reference to “golden parachute” in notice of application insufficient to establish link between individual’s employment and relief sought. Shareholders’ motion to compel answers to questions regarding director’s quorum-related feelings denied. No probative value. Shareholders’ motion to compel production of correspondence draft report from corporation’s expert allowed. By tendering expert, corporation waived litigation privilege over documentation between expert and corporation’s counsel. Expert ordered to attend for further cross-examination.

Ebrahim v. Continental Precious Minerals Inc. (Feb. 17, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Comm. List), Brown J., File No. CV-11-9446-00CL; CV-11-9520-00CL) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 361 (21 pp.).

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Upcoming FACL conference focused on AI’s impact on profession, advancing careers of Asian lawyers

Legal Innovation Zone launches program to help legal tech entrepreneurs turn ideas into businesses

Law Foundation of Ontario forms strategic partnership with Indigenous Peoples Resilience Fund

Ontario Superior Court upholds the College of Physiotherapists’s authority over billing inaccuracies

Housing supply needs more public-private collaboration, less red tape, say lawyers

Judicial vacancies holding up construction litigation: litigators

Most Read Articles

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of statute-barred personal injury claim

Judicial vacancies holding up construction litigation: litigators

Ontario Court of Appeal resolves access rights between parents and maternal grandparents

With new federal funding Pro Bono Ontario expanding program for Ukrainian nationals across Canada