Hailey Brianna Bruckner

The appellants sought production of trust ledgers of the respondents' law firms and unredacted bank statements in a civil fraud action, arguing that the records were necessary to trace funds and determine if the respondents breached Mareva injunctions.

The courts below held that the trust ledgers were presumptively privileged, the presumption was not rebutted, and the crime-fraud exception did not apply.

The Divisional Court also remitted the issue of privilege over the unredacted bank statements to the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and the presumption was not rebutted.

The Court also held that while the crime-fraud exception could apply in a civil action for fraud or breach of a court order, the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for its application.

The Court found no error in remitting the bank statements issue to the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs decision following an appeal where success was divided.

The appellant succeeded in setting aside a permanent stay of proceedings due to a change in the law, but the court remitted the stay motion for reconsideration rather than finding no abuse of process.

The respondents successfully resisted an order relating to disclosure and an Anton Piller issue.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

The costs of the original stay motion were reserved to the judge rehearing the motion, or to be resolved under r. 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure if the motion is abandoned.

The appellant appealed an order staying the proceedings below.

The motion judge had found an abuse of process based on the appellant's failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements, relying on the Handley Estate doctrine.

However, this doctrine was overruled by the Court of Appeal in 1086289 Ontario Inc. (Urban Electrical Contractors) v. Welland (City), 2026 ONCA 352, after the motion judge's order.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's decision was based on an unduly rigid inquiry that did not consider actual prejudice, as is now required.

The appeal was allowed, the stay was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the motion judge for re-determination under the current law.

The court determined the costs for seven different motions in a complex commercial action involving Mareva injunctions and proprietary claims.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful parties on each motion, balancing divided success and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.

In total, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay net costs to various defendants, while some defendants were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs for motions where the plaintiffs were successful.

The Divisional Court remitted a matter back to the Superior Court to determine whether disclosing the identities of third-party funders paying the living expenses of the Aljabri defendants posed a risk to their personal safety.

The defendants adduced unchallenged evidence that the Saudi regime had previously targeted the family and associates of the lead defendant following a 2017 palace coup.

The court found a material risk that disclosure to the plaintiffs could lead to the information reaching the Saudi government, jeopardizing the funders' safety.

The court ordered that the identities remain disclosed on a counsels' eyes only basis and not be provided to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant waived litigation privilege over a 'Proffer' document provided to the Attorney General of Canada for national security vetting under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that while the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, the defendant's stated intention of using it to promote trial efficiency constituted a waiver of privilege vis-à-vis the trial judge.

The court ordered the unredacted Proffer to be provided to the judge and established a comprehensive trial protocol, including the appointment of amicus curiae and advance vetting of sensitive evidence, to balance national security concerns with trial fairness.

In a professional discipline proceeding arising from four annual audits of a large construction group, the Panel found extensive failures to comply with auditing standards in client acceptance, audit planning, fraud risk assessment, professional skepticism, materiality, related-party procedures, internal controls, contract testing, marketable securities testing, covenant analysis, and reporting.

One respondent was also found to have failed to exercise due care when accepting the engagement despite serious warnings from the predecessor auditor concerning suspected fraud and scope limitations.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the Panel held that the evidence of the applicant’s expert established professional misconduct under Rules 202.1 and 206.1, except for one narrowly worded allegation concerning signatures on a management representation letter.

The Panel then applied the Anthony-Cook public interest test and, although expressing significant reservations, accepted joint submissions imposing fines, publication, compliance consequences, and substantial costs.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for failing to comply with a prior order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had ordered the nurse to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program and receive a caution.

The nurse admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct and ordered a penalty including a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against the Member for holding herself out as a Nurse Practitioner without authorization and for failing to comply with a previous order to complete a remediation program.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, noting her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, taking into account the Member's undertaking to permanently resign from the profession.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a stay of proceedings due to the plaintiff’s failure to promptly disclose a settlement with certain defendants.

The court reviews the history of the Anton Piller Order, the Comeback Order, and the subsequent motions, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants, Marc Castillo and Castillo HR Consulting Inc., in the amount of $45,000.

The court declines to revisit costs already determined by a previous order and limits recovery to the portion of the motion related to the stay, excluding costs for the Anton Piller Order and preparation of a discovery plan.

This decision addresses a motion by the plaintiffs for production and directions regarding claims of privilege over thousands of documents and answers to questions refused on discovery in a complex, multi-party commercial litigation.

The court reviews the legal principles governing solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and common interest privilege, and applies them to various categories of documents and questions.

The court provides detailed directions on the production of documents, the sufficiency of evidence to support privilege claims, and the process for resolving ongoing disputes about privilege.

The court considered a motion by Marc Castillo and Castillo HR Consulting Inc. to stay the action for abuse of process due to Peninsula Employment Services Ltd.'s failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements with three former co-defendants.

The court found that the delayed disclosure of these agreements, which required the settling defendants to cooperate with the plaintiff, fundamentally altered the adversarial landscape and violated the strict requirement for immediate disclosure.

As a result, the action was permanently stayed.

The court also addressed, in obiter, the obligations of the Independent Supervising Solicitor regarding the production and accessibility of electronic documents seized under an Anton Piller Order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that a document ("the Proffer") provided by the defendant to the Attorney General for Canada (AGC) under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act was not subject to privilege or that any such privilege had been waived, and an order for its production.

The defendant asserted litigation privilege.

The court found that the Proffer was created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation, making it presumptively protected by litigation privilege.

The court further held that the disclosure of the Proffer to the AGC, being a statutory compulsion, did not constitute a voluntary waiver of privilege, nor did fairness and consistency require waiver.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a Registered Practical Nurse for stealing hydromorphone from patients at a long-term care facility and replacing it with an antidepressant, which was subsequently administered to patients by unaware colleagues.

The member also failed to report resulting criminal charges for theft to the College.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered a 10-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and practice restrictions including employer notification and a prohibition on independent practice.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for failing to provide adequate care and failing to document care for four patients at a long-term care facility.

The member admitted to the allegations, which included failing to assess a patient on symptom surveillance who later died of sepsis, and failing to escalate another patient's fall.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a registered practical nurse for misappropriating a vanity from her employer.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the nurse committed professional misconduct by breaching the standards of practice, misappropriating property, and engaging in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an oral reprimand, a one-month suspension, meetings with a regulatory expert, and 12 months of employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct relating to multiple incidents at two hospitals, including failing to document medication administration, failing to intervene when a patient's condition deteriorated, administering unauthorized medication, and failing to follow physician orders.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a 4-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' contempt motion against two defendants, Saad Aljabri and Mohammed Aljabri.

The plaintiffs had sought a contempt order for alleged breaches of a Mareva Order, with potential sanctions including striking defences and default judgments for billions of dollars.

The defendants, as successful parties, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous, nor did they pursue the motion for an improper tactical advantage.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants for the contempt motion.

Additionally, the court fixed costs for several preliminary motions, with mixed success for the parties, rejecting a "distributive costs" approach for the contempt motion itself but fixing costs for each preliminary motion separately.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse who stole hydromorphone from patients at a long-term care facility and replaced it with an antidepressant.

The nurse also failed to report subsequent criminal charges for theft to the College.

Proceeding by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Order, the Discipline Committee found the nurse committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a 10-month suspension, and various practice conditions.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for verbally, physically, and emotionally abusing three vulnerable patients, including making inappropriate comments and using unnecessary force.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a 5-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.