In a discrimination case where a complainant names as a respondent a lawyer who acted for another lawyer in the course of a discriminatory event, is the complainant required to waive solicitor-client privilege?

On further reflection, it seems to me inevitable that such disputes will arise in any case where a complainant names as a respondent a lawyer who acted for another respondent in the course of allegedly discriminatory events. In order for either or both of those respondents to give evidence to defend themselves against such allegations, the client will be forced to waive the right to solicitor-client privilege which would otherwise cloak their confidential communications. As I discussed in detail in Metcalfe (No. 6), the law is assiduous in its protection of solicitor-client privilege. As stated by Dickson J. in Solosky v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 at p. 839, “the right to communicate in confidence with one’s legal adviser is a fundamental civil and legal right, founded upon the unique relationship of solicitor and client”. If the law were to fail to be vigilant in its protection of solicitor-client privilege, parties, who might otherwise seek the benefit of legal counsel, might be reluctant to seek and take legal advice, for fear that their communications with counsel would be admissible in future proceedings. This would be to the benefit of neither the individuals involved nor the legal system as a whole.