• The case involves a rented safety deposit box (#619) at BMO. In March 2019, the Plaintiffs discovered the box missing and its lock drilled out; it had not been accessed since April 2017.
• BMO’s internal investigation found no unauthorized access and denied liability, citing a limited liability clause.
• Plaintiffs sued for $1 million, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

Key Issues:

1. Privilege Claims:

   • BMO claimed litigation privilege over its investigation, arguing it was done in anticipation of litigation.
   • The court rejected this, ruling BMO failed to prove the investigation’s dominant purpose was legal defense, as there was insufficient supporting evidence.

2. Relevance of Discovery:

   • Plaintiffs sought answers about the investigation and BMO’s internal policies.
   • The court found these questions relevant to determining whether BMO acted diligently in investigating the missing box.

Ruling:

• BMO must answer several previously refused questions but is not required to address speculative inquiries, such as who might be responsible for accessing the box.
• The bank must also amend its affidavit to clarify which documents are privileged.

Conclusion:

• The court urged both parties to settle costs; otherwise, written submissions may be needed. The decision highlights the need for clear evidence when claiming litigation privilege and transparency in internal investigations.
• No monetary award specified.