Nick Ranieri

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 plaintiff sought repayment of $57,843.87 advanced to the defendant corporation following the collapse of a purported foreign investment scheme.

The defendants asserted that the payment represented the purchase of a portion of their investment interest and counterclaimed alleging that the plaintiff and another individual acted as agents of the investment promoter.

The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment of the witnesses and concluded that the advance constituted a loan to the corporate defendant rather than an investment purchase.

Judgment was granted against the corporation for $65,000 pursuant to the loan terms, while claims against the individual defendants were dismissed.

The counterclaim alleging agency and breach of the foreign investment arrangement was dismissed for failure to prove agency, contract, or damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order for delay after the action was not set down for trial by a court‑ordered deadline.

The court applied the contextual approach articulated in appellate authority and considered the four factors governing such motions: explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice.

Although the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the prolonged litigation delay and did not establish inadvertence, the court found the motion was brought promptly and that the presumption of prejudice was rebutted.

Evidence of a Canada Revenue Agency investigation into the same investment demonstrated preservation of relevant documents and undermined claims of prejudice.

Balancing the factors contextually, the court set aside the dismissal order and allowed the action to proceed under a new timetable.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

An arbitrator upheld the termination, finding the appellant was substantially able to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a band saw operator.

On appeal, the appellant argued the arbitrator erred in her assessment of the medical evidence and credibility.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence and that it is not the appellate function to re-weigh evidence absent a palpable error.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until May 1992.

He sought further weekly benefits, rehabilitation expenses, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility and that he was substantially able to perform his essential tasks after May 1992, dismissing the claim for ongoing weekly benefits.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the applicant had attended school full-time between January and May 1992, precluding him from receiving benefits during that period, and ordered him to repay the benefits received.

The insurer was ordered to pay an outstanding rehabilitation account that had been pre-approved.

The insurer was also awarded $500 because the applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings and parts of the claim were without merit.