Legal Blog:

Privileged Production

Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Al Jabri 2025 Ont SCJ (Div Ct)

The plaintiff claimed a massive fraud and had already obtained a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order. The plaintiff brought a motion for production of law firm trust ledgers and for an order by which copies of foreign bank statements would not be redacted. The court refused production of the trust ledgers because the plaintiff did not show either that (i) there was no reasonable possibility that disclosure of the information would lead, directly or indirectly, to the revelation of confidential solicitor-client communications or (ii) the requested information was not linked to the merits of the case and its disclosure would not prejudice the client. Note the difference between the facts in this case and the case in which a judgment has already been obtained and the plaintiff is merely moving to find where a judgment debtor moved its money. The court did allow an order un-redacting the foreign bank statements, but still left open the possibility that if any of the redacted items could be linked to a lawyer, those items would remain redacted.

Fraudulent Preference

RPG Receivables Purchase Group Inc. v. American Pacific Corporation 2025 Ont CA

Trustee in bankruptcy moved to set aside, under s. 95(1)(a) and (2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The bankrupt had paid $400,000 to one of its major suppliers approximately one month before it assigned itself into bankruptcy. The bankrupt was insolvent when it made the payment. The bankrupt stated that it made the payment so that it could get more supply from that creditor that it would use to produce product to satisfy its major customer. The court held that paying past indebtedness to enable the continuation of the business is inconsistent with a preference only if the plan to continue in the business had a reasonable basis and, in this case, it did not. The payment was set aside.

Undervalue Transfer – Trust

E. Sands & Associates v. Gidda 2025 Ont SCJ

Trustee in bankruptcy moved to set aside, under s. 96(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), a previous house transfer from the bankrupt to a non-arms length transferee. The transfer was under value. The transferee argued that the bankrupt had been a trustee under an express trust in favour of the transferee and was merely transferring the legal interest back to the transferee. The alleged express trust was not in writing and was therefore invalid pursuant to s. 9 of the Statute of Frauds. The transferee wanted the trustee to reimburse it for paying mortgage and other expenses to maintain the property while she lived there; however, the judge noted that these expenses did not increase the capital value of the property and that, therefore, the bankrupt was never enriched and the transferee never suffered a detriment because of those payments.

Krystyne Rusek Quoted in The Globe and Mail’s Article “After disputed cottage sale, executors found personally liable for legal costs when they appealed their removal”

Krystyne Rusek, counsel with Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, is quoted in Rudy Mezzetta’s article, “After disputed cottage sale, executors found personally liable for legal costs when they appealed their removal” for The Globe and Mail published July 9, 2025.

Access the full article here.

Safety

The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act has been described as a “remedial public welfare statute intended to guarantee a minimum level of protection for the health and safety of workers.”

As such, it allocates “various occupational health and safety duties among various classes of workplace actors, including constructors, employers, and owners.” The duties are often concurrent and overlapping such that several different actors may be responsible for the same protective functions and measures. The Act is premised on the theory that, if all workplace parties must exercise due diligence, then, when one of them fails to do so, the diligence of another may compensate for it. The purpose is to leave little to chance and make protection of workers an overlapping responsibility.

This is the backdrop of a prosecution by the Crown, represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Labour, against the Corporation of the City of Greater Sudbury arising from a death at a construction site in Sudbury.