G. Gill

The defendants, a consortium of insurers, brought a motion to clarify TD Bank's discovery obligations regarding documents subject to solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement/mediation privilege.

TD Bank was seeking indemnity under fidelity policies for amounts paid to settle 19 underlying lawsuits related to a Ponzi scheme.

The court ruled that TD Bank had not implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege through its pleadings.

It also found that litigation privilege for documents created for the underlying litigation was not lost upon settlement, given the close connection to the current coverage dispute.

However, the court determined that TD Bank could not assert settlement privilege over documents related to the underlying settlements, as these were crucial for the insurers to assess the reasonableness and allocation of damages for coverage purposes.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded a violation of section 10(b) rights, acknowledging that special circumstances existed requiring the police to ensure the accused understood his legal rights in a meaningful way.

The central issue was whether the breath sample evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused's limited English proficiency and sincere request for a Punjabi language interpreter were not adequately addressed, resulting in a failure to provide meaningful consultation with counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence and dismissed the charge.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce three categories of documents in its affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff argued that it was prohibited from producing these documents by United States regulatory and privacy laws, as well as US court protective orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the foreign laws and orders were entitled to comity.

The court held that the plaintiff should not be compelled to violate foreign laws and directed the defendants to seek production or consent directly from the relevant US authorities or courts, with the plaintiff's reasonable cooperation.