Wm. Scott

The plaintiffs, victims of a serious motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel their former lawyers (the defendants) to produce all internal memos, notes, and emails from their files related to the plaintiffs' matters.

The defendants argued these documents were not client property.

The court granted the motion, distinguishing previous case law on file ownership in the context of a professional negligence action.

The Master emphasized that in a negligence claim against former counsel, the ownership of documents is largely irrelevant, and all non-privileged, relevant documents are producible.

The decision was guided by the principles of proportionality and timely access to justice, particularly in light of a pending summary judgment motion.

The court heard a motion to settle the order resulting from a previous finding of contempt and sentence against the plaintiff.

The court resolved disputes over the preamble, prayer for relief, and specific paragraphs of the draft order.

The court also clarified the calculation of funds to be disbursed from the defendants' counsel's trust account to the plaintiff, determining the final amount to be $35,986.77, and set the date from which interest should be calculated.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the motion.

Following a prior finding of civil contempt for commencing foreign litigation contrary to a final order, the court addressed the outstanding sentencing issues of costs, fine, and payment mechanics.

Applying civil contempt sentencing principles and the presumptive substantial indemnity approach to contempt costs, the court held that the contemnor's second act of contempt, the delays caused, and the seriousness of undermining court orders justified substantial indemnity costs, subject to a reduction for duplication of effort.

The court also imposed a fine to reflect specific and general deterrence, emphasizing the need to protect the authority of court orders.

Directions were given for release of trust funds and payment of statutory interest.

On a contempt motion arising from long-running estate litigation, the court held that the respondent was in contempt of a final settlement order by commencing New York litigation seeking relief duplicative of, and inconsistent with, matters reserved to the Ontario case-management judge.

Applying the civil contempt test, the court found the prior order, read in its full context and spirit, clearly required further formal orders flowing from the minutes of settlement to be remitted to the same judge.

The respondent deliberately commenced the foreign proceeding, and reliance on incorrect legal advice was no defence to liability, though potentially relevant to penalty.

Other alleged acts of obstruction and non-compliance were left unresolved because credibility findings would require viva voce evidence.