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.