Nadia Chiesa

The plaintiff lawyer sued the defendant client for unpaid legal fees and included privileged communications in the statement of claim.

The defendant moved to strike the privileged paragraphs, arguing he had not waived solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that a client's refusal to pay legal fees does not constitute an implied waiver of privilege.

However, the court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to include privileged information necessary to advance the claim.

To protect the privilege, the court ordered the file sealed.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 39.03 to examine a non-party lawyer and accountant regarding an estate freeze transaction, and for the production of their files.

The responding parties opposed the examination and production of the lawyer's file on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the responding parties implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied entirely on the moving party's misrepresentations when signing the estate freeze documents.

The motion was granted, and the non-parties were ordered to produce relevant documents and attend examinations.

Acasi Machinery Inc. brought a motion to stay an action commenced by Jeremy Kessler Canadian Mustard Inc. o/a Kozlik’s Mustard in Ontario, arguing that a forum selection clause in their contract mandated disputes be resolved in Florida.

The court dismissed the motion, finding strong reasons to avoid the clause.

The clause was neither negotiated nor brought to Kozlik's attention, indicating an unequal bargaining power.

The court also applied the Moran principle, stating that manufacturers should expect to defend negligence claims where their products are used, and noted that the availability of Zoom reduces the significance of witness location in determining the convenient forum.

Ontario was found to have a real and substantial connection and to be the convenient forum.

The court issued a costs endorsement and corrigendum following the dismissal of the responding parties' motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court was informed of two unaccepted offers to settle made by one of the parties seeking costs.

The court also corrected an error regarding funds held as security for costs, clarifying they were solely for the benefit of one party.

The court increased the costs awarded to the party who made the offers to $22,500, finding the requested $35,000 disproportionate for a 1.5-hour motion.

A separate costs award of $7,500 was maintained for the other parties seeking costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for early documentary discovery before the close of pleadings, seeking the identities of the tenant's employees who resided at the leased property when a fire occurred, as well as the production of the tenant's insurance policies.

The court granted the request for the employees' names and contact information, applying the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04 to allow the plaintiff to properly name the John Doe defendants and avoid future delays.

However, the court dismissed the request for early production of the insurance policies, finding it premature prior to the delivery of an affidavit of documents.

The moving party Plaintiffs ("AFEX") sought a continuation of an ex parte Mareva injunction against the Defendants (MBM Trading, Mendel Streicher, and Emmeco Inc.).

AFEX's claim arose from six USD wire transactions totaling over $845,000 that were initiated by MBM but subsequently rejected by MBM's financial institutions due to insufficient funds or frozen accounts.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, inferring that Streicher knew or was wilfully blind to the frozen status of his accounts when initiating the transactions.

The court rejected the Defendants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and the absence of a signed account agreement, finding that the parties' conduct implied an agreement to Ontario jurisdiction and that a mediation clause did not preclude urgent interlocutory relief.

The court also found a serious risk of asset dissipation, noting Streicher's lack of transparency regarding the use of AFEX funds and his rapid repayment of other creditors.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the MBM Defendants were ordered to provide a sworn statement of worldwide assets and submit to examinations.

The defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation, moved to strike the plaintiff's (Angus Inc.) Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), alleging failure to plead material facts for claims of inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and "misrepresentation in the marketplace." The court dismissed the motion regarding inducing breach of contract and intentional interference, finding the pleadings sufficient.

However, the claim for "misrepresentation in the marketplace," interpreted as injurious falsehood, was struck with leave to amend due to insufficient particulars of malice and intent to induce non-dealing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiff, a mortgage lender, suffered a loss when a required postponement of a prior charge was not obtained, leaving it as a third mortgagee rather than a first mortgagee.

The title insurer acknowledged coverage and paid the bulk of the loss after the property was sold under power of sale.

The plaintiff sued to recover approximately $40,000 in disputed property maintenance expenses and legal fees incurred by its independently retained counsel, as well as a determination on the interest calculation.

The court reduced the claimed expenses and legal fees, finding that some costs lacked strict proof, involved personal benefit to the plaintiff's principal, and were unnecessary given the insurer's early concession of coverage.

The court also ruled that interest was to be calculated and compounded semi-annually.