C. Francis

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce its lawyer's transaction file, arguing the plaintiff waived solicitor-client privilege by filing an affidavit from its transaction counsel on an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The court reviewed the principles of deemed waiver and found that the lawyer's affidavit contained numerous substantive statements regarding legal advice, the plaintiff's state of mind, and selective disclosure of privileged communications.

The court concluded that fairness and consistency required the production of the balance of the transaction file, excluding retainer agreements, dockets, and accounts.

The moving party, Pacific Hardwood Limited, was entirely successful on a motion to discharge a construction lien registered by the responding party, Dolvin Mechanical Contractors Ltd. The parties could not agree on costs and filed written submissions.

The court found that the responding party had improperly registered a $2.3 million lien against the moving party's property without a contract and failed to perfect it.

Due to the responding party's conduct in refusing to release the lien and unnecessarily delaying the motion, the court awarded costs to the moving party on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $23,493.50.

Pacific Hardwood Limited, a non-party owner of two condominium units, brought a motion to discharge a construction lien registered by Dolvin Mechanical Contractors Ltd. against its units.

Dolvin had contracted with the developer prior to condominium registration but registered its lien after Pacific purchased the units, without naming Pacific as an owner.

The court granted the motion, finding that Dolvin had no lien rights against Pacific, failed to properly preserve and perfect its lien against Pacific, and that the conveyance to Pacific was not void under section 80(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

Following extensive trial reasons in complex bankruptcy and fraud proceedings, the court issued a second case conference memorandum addressing outstanding procedural and remedial issues.

The court directed that issues concerning damages recoverable by a creditor, tracing relief, and costs orders against certain defendants be scheduled before the associate chief justice who presided over related contempt proceedings.

The memorandum also clarified that a previously ordered constructive trust over the bankrupt’s property should be incorporated into the final order without further submissions.

The court established a timetable for written submissions on post‑judgment interest relating to an earlier judgment and on the terms of a Mareva injunction in aid of execution.

The decision functioned primarily as case management to finalize remaining issues in the litigation.

The case management judge issued directions regarding the scheduling and sequencing of outstanding issues in a complex bankruptcy proceeding.

The court ordered written submissions for issues concerning the disclosure of the Trustee's report and the release of funds, while deferring other matters, including examinations and discharge hearings, until the trial judge releases supplementary reasons and determines contempt sentencing.

A creditor brought a motion under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking authorization to continue foreign enforcement proceedings after the trustee refused to proceed.

The proceedings in Taiwan sought recognition and enforcement of Ontario contempt costs orders against property owned by a defendant abroad.

The trustee opposed the motion, arguing the claims lacked merit, raised potential set‑off issues, and conflicted with settlements and releases.

The court held the creditor met the threshold under s. 38 because the costs orders remained outstanding and the proposed claim was not spurious.

Leave was granted permitting the creditor to continue the Taiwan proceeding at its own expense with assignment of the trustee’s interest for that limited purpose.

The trustee in bankruptcy sought advice and directions regarding multiple proofs of claim filed against the bankrupt estate.

The trustee had disallowed claims filed by several entities and argued that the claimants failed to properly appeal the disallowances within the 30‑day period required by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that because the appeals were not filed with the court within the statutory time frame, the trustee’s disallowances were final and conclusive.

A subsequent proof of claim filed for the aggregate amount of the disallowed claims was found to be essentially the same claim and constituted an abuse of process, engaging principles of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court expunged all claims and barred the entities and their affiliates from filing further claims in the estate.