Mark Freake

The applicant, an experienced litigation lawyer, sought leave to bring a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his appeal in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The appeal had been dismissed for failure to perfect it within the ordered timeframe.

The court found that the applicant's conduct, including repeated delays and failure to comply with rules, indicated an attempt to stall the enforcement of the bankruptcy order.

The motion for leave was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce personal guarantees executed by the individual defendants for the corporate defendant's debt of over $2.3 million.

The corporate defendant was in receivership.

The individual defendants raised numerous defenses, including an alleged oral agreement to waive the guarantees, breach of a subordination agreement, and a counterclaim for unpaid rebates and damages for forcing the company into receivership.

The court rejected all defenses, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted summary judgment while dismissing the counterclaim.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring the production of its solicitor's transaction file, while the defendants cross-appealed the Master's exclusion of docket entries and the costs award.

The Master had found that the plaintiff impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by filing an extensive affidavit from its solicitor in support of a summary judgment motion.

The Superior Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Master's finding of waiver and the exclusion of dockets as irrelevant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff for appealing an issue it had effectively conceded before the Master.

In a bankruptcy proceeding on the Commercial List, counsel alerted the court that its earlier endorsement had not addressed a specific tab in the Brief of Privileged Documents.

The court considered whether the materials contained in that tab were privileged.

Because the tab excerpted material from a settlement conference brief previously held to be privileged, the court confirmed that the tab itself was also privileged.

The endorsement was corrected by way of corrigendum to reflect that determination.

A motion arose in bankruptcy litigation concerning whether portions of a trustee’s report disclosed privileged communications from a prior joint retainer between the trustee and a creditor.

The creditor argued the materials were protected by solicitor‑client privilege, settlement privilege, and common interest privilege and sought to prevent their disclosure.

The court held that, in a dispute between former joint clients over removal of counsel, solicitor‑client privilege does not apply between the clients themselves, allowing the full record to be considered on that motion.

However, for the trustee’s broader motion for advice and directions involving third parties, several documents remained privileged because privilege jointly held by co‑clients cannot be unilaterally waived.

The court therefore ordered certain materials sealed for the removal motion but redacted from the public record for other proceedings.