Associate Judge Alexander Ilchenko

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property after the defendant vendor failed to close the transaction due to an inability to discharge two mortgages.

The mortgages were subsequently assigned to a third party who opposed the CPL and sought to sell the property under power of sale.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the balance of equities under the Dhunna factors did not favour granting the CPL.

The plaintiff failed to prove the property was unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and the third-party mortgagee would suffer greater prejudice if the CPL were granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant, a lawyer, to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved an alleged contract where the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs a 10% referral fee for clients referred to him.

The defendant refused to answer questions and produce financial records regarding the allegedly referred clients, claiming the information was irrelevant and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court found the information relevant to the pleadings and held that the presumptive privilege over the financial records was rebutted, as the plaintiffs were not seeking confidential communications or evidence against the clients.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the requested financial records with any solicitor-client communications redacted.