During argument, both counsel made reference to a number of authorities, but none dealt with the situation where, as here, the person seeking the order was not a client or "near client" and did not have an association or commonality of interest with a client of the lawyer against whom the order was sought. The facts in the present case therefore do not easily lend themselves to the more typical analysis which follows the test set out by Sopinka J. in MacDonald Estate v. Martin, [1993] S.C.R. 1235.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.