They’re at it again. The principal of solicitor client privilege is taking another hammering in the Weave Shed courtroom.
I can not believe that our rights were either non existent in the first place or are being whittled away by the legal collective ad nauseam.
Sean Adams is presumably all set to testify. But, a problem. David Silmser was asked to waive solicitor-clinet privilege. Dave apparently refused.
Adams, who oversaw Dave’s signing off on the illegal $32,000 settlement, is presumably afraid if he testifies Dave will wither report him to the Law Society of Upper Canada or sue him.
Solicitor-client privilege is presumably a fundamental right which must be “jealously guarded.” Adams lawyer Ron McLennan (?) was keen that questions which might put Adams in difficult situation in that regard be avoided.
Lead commission counsel Engelmann is arguing Dave waived his privilege countless times when he testified what Adams directed him to do or did during I doubt that Dave knows that and I am puzzled as to how a client caught in the midst of an illegal deal is supposed to deal with the matter. It seems that once a client says boo about what his lawyer did or not do or say he has, according to the gathered throng, ipso facto waived his privilege. This, according to the legal world, is an act of “self interest” and, according to him, the genie is then out of the bottle. That, it seems, gives lawyers the right to justify the violation of solicitor-client privilege.
Glaude is ruling that in suing many years ago David Silmser “brandished his sword” and thereby waived solicitor client privilege. Do you suppose Dave understood that?
God help us!
Enough for now,
Sylvia