Summary conviction appeal for uttering threats. Issue on appeal of whether the trial judge unfairly restricted cross-examination. During the trial, the complainant referred to advice from her lawyer not to release her child to the Appellant. The trial judge found that privilege had not been entirely waived, and prevented cross-examination about all legal advice the complainant received.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Waiver of solicitor-client privilege can be express or implied, and a party may waive solicitor-client privilege by voluntarily injecting legal advice he or she has received into the legal action. “[W]hile the trial judge may have erred in determining that the waiver of privilege was limited in these circumstances, the error was harmless. He did not err in restricting cross-examination related to any and all communications made to the lawyer in this instance.” As per Meddoui, [1991] 3 SCR 320, despite typical wide latitude in cross-examination, courts have discretion to limit questions, such as those of tenuous relevance.
N. Rauf – Defence Counsel