The court emphasized that the privilege should only be waived in clearly defined circumstances
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has rejected an application seeking to waive solicitor-client privilege in a family law dispute over property ownership in Langley, BC.
The dispute in Gladiuk v Gladiuk, 2024 BCSC 1726, revolved around the family home of Peggy and Bruce Gladiuk. There were various claims about the division of ownership between them and other family members, including Bruce’s sister, Tania.
Tania Gladiuk, a respondent in the case, applied to the court for a declaration that Peggy Gladiuk had waived privilege over communications with her lawyer concerning the ownership of the property. Tania argued that Peggy’s reference to these communications in a prior affidavit implied she had waived solicitor-client privilege.
The dispute over the property stemmed from joint ownership between Bruce and his now-deceased father, John Gladiuk. Before his death, John transferred his ownership interest to Tania, sparking a series of legal claims regarding the rightful ownership of the property. Peggy asserted that John held the property in trust for her and Bruce and claimed she was entitled to 50 percent of the entire property as part of the family’s assets. Tania and other family members contended that John held a 70 percent interest and Bruce only 30 percent.
In an earlier affidavit, Peggy mentioned that discussions with her lawyer led her to not initially name John as a respondent in her family law claim but later prompted her to amend her claim. Tania argued that by referencing these discussions, Peggy had waived solicitor-client privilege and was improperly using legal advice to justify not acting sooner in the litigation.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Peggy’s communications with her lawyer were irrelevant to the material issues of ownership and did not give her an unfair advantage. The court emphasized that solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the legal system and should only be waived in clearly defined circumstances. The court found no evidence that Peggy relied on her legal advice to gain an advantage, nor was her state of mind about the property’s ownership affected by those communications.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Peggy had not impliedly waived privilege and dismissed Tania’s application.
