Date: 19990513
Docket: A-231-98
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
B E T W E E N:
LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
Appellant
(Respondent)
" and "
BENETTON GROUP S.p.A.
Respondent
(Appellant)
HEARD at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, May 13, 1999
JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, May 13, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER J.A.
Date: 19990513
Docket: A-231-98
C O R A M: STRAYER J.A.
LINDEN J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
B E T W E E N:
LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
Appellant
(Respondent)
" and "
BENETTON GROUP S.p.A.
Respondent
(Appellant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Thursday, May 13, 1999)
STRAYER J.A.
I. We are all of the view that this appeal must be dismissed.
II. It has not been demonstrated to us that the learned motions judge committed any reviewable error in dismissing the appellant's motion for directions to Ms. Whitehead, the deponent of the affidavit filed by the respondent on a motion under old Rule 704(7), to answer questions and produce further documents.
III. In our view the motions judge was correct in treating paragraph 12 of the Whitehead affidavit as relevant only to the issue of delay. Consequently cross-examination had to be confined to that issue and not to the substance of the views, referred to therein, of a Dr. Erickson who had been approached by the respondent for a preliminary opinion but who was not retained to swear an expert affidavit. Any relevance his preliminary views might have to the motion before the Court would be at best miniscule and was properly treated by the motions judge as being of no substance.
IV. As the questions and documents sought are not relevant to the issue on which the Whitehead affidavit was filed, it is not necessary to consider further the questions of waiver of privilege although we do not disagree with the motions judge's conclusions on this point.
V. The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
J.A.
Email this Content