Law360 Canada ( August 9, 2018, 8:33 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the plaintiff from an order declaring that it had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over various subject areas central to the action and from an order denying the plaintiff the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent on an affidavit that was the foundation of the application to strike the pleadings for abuse of process. The plaintiff had commenced an action against the respondents for conspiracy. The plaintiff’s property in Antigua had been expropriated. The plaintiff now sought to enforce an order of the Privy Council ordering the Antiguan Government to pay the plaintiff compensation. The Antiguan Government then sold the property to the respondent Freetown which paid only part of the compensation ordered. The plaintiff alleged that the respondents conspired with the Government of Antigua to structure the purchase of the property in such a way that the total price would not be made public, with the intention that the plaintiff would be deprived of further compensation owing pursuant to the Privy Council order. The respondents characterized the lawsuit as an abuse of process and applied for an order to strike. In support of their application, the respondents filed an affidavit from the CEO of Replay Management, a BC corporation affiliated with Freetown. The affidavit addressed the foundation of the conspiracy claim. The respondents also alleged the plaintiff had waived solicitor and client privilege when, in response to the application to strike, it voluntarily raised an affirmative defence that it acted in good faith based on a limitation period that was about to expire. Having raised the limitation period as a defence to justify its conduct and asserted its genuine belief in that limitation period as the reason the conspiracy claim was commenced, the respondents argued that the plaintiff could not now prevent that defence from being investigated and tested by its assertion of privilege over the documents and communications relevant to that defence. The chambers judge accepted the theory of the respondents that when the plaintiff asserted that they filed the conspiracy claim when they did because of a concern about a limitation period, they must have had legal advice on that subject, and the reference to limitation periods constituted a waiver of the legal advice received by them and ordered that the plaintiff produce all documents and communications relating to or evidencing the consideration of the claim and other privileged material. The chambers judge also concluded that by including a statement from the Antigua solicitor in respect of the partial payment made by Freetown, the plaintiff had waived privilege with respect to the subject matter of the statement. The chambers judge considered that there were no contradictions in the affidavit evidence, but rather statements of opinion or assertion of facts not material to the application to strike....