J. Parker

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of solicitor-client privileged communications and documents related to the plaintiff's decision to appeal a prior Master's decision.

The Master, however, determined that the motion was "in an appeal" and therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear it under Rule 37.02(2)(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master rejected arguments that parties could confer jurisdiction by consent or that a motion to quash an appeal was separate from the appeal itself.

The motion was adjourned to be heard by a judge.

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 defendant province brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a developer’s claim alleging breach of a settlement agreement, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation relating to a residential development affected by the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 and its accompanying protection plan.

The developer alleged the province failed to warn of the legislative changes, failed to ensure the project was grandfathered under transitional provisions, and made public representations that existing developments would not be affected.

The court held that the Act’s broad statutory immunity clause barred claims arising directly or indirectly from the enactment or implementation of the legislation.

It further found the pleading disclosed no viable contractual breach, no private law duty of care, and no basis for negligent misrepresentation.

The claim was struck as it was plain and obvious that it could not succeed.