One Great Case

We like to believe that contempt of court is simple: you break the rules, face the consequences, and if you comply, you earn your way back out. The law, we tell ourselves, is precise, structured, and fair.But what happens when the very order meant to restore accountability becomes the trap itself?This case, Chiang (Trustee of) v. Chiang, forces us to confront a deeply uncomfortable reality: that even systems designed to enforce justice can spiral into something coercive, endless, and structurally impossible to escape.What began as a routine commercial debt dispute in California evolved into one of the most complex and punishing contempt proceedings in Canadian legal history.A family chased across borders. A consent order that functioned more like a contract with no exit. A process where the “keys to the cell” were no longer in the hands of the people being punished, but in the hands of their creditors. A use of contempt that was alarming and structurally unsound. And a long odyssey of litigation that took over eight years to resolve.At the center of this story is a haunting paradox. The court wanted answers, but the mechanism it created to extract those answers required cooperation from third parties in another jurisdiction. The result was a legal maze where effort was never enough, compliance was never complete, and the definition of “purging contempt” remained perpetually out of reach.The result was a system that punished without a clear path to redemption, where time, effort, and even compliance could not guarantee release. The lesson for litigators is that precision is not a technical detail; it is a safeguard against harm.To unpack how this happened (and why it still matters), I sat down with Tom Curry, a veteran litigation lawyer in Toronto who was brought into the case at its darkest point.Together, we explored how a single consent order reshaped the trajectory of an entire family’s life, why the Court of Appeal eventually intervened, and what this case teaches us about power, perseverance, and the limits of coercive justice.You’ll also learn: How a routine business dispute turned into a decade-long legal odysseyHow a consent order became the most powerful lever in the caseWhat happens when the keys to freedom are held by creditor/plaintiff instead of the contemnorWhy “best efforts” can become an impossible legal standardHow coercive sentences cross the line into punishmentWhat this case reveals about power, persistence, and human resilienceWhy structure, not pressure, is the real engine of accountabilityGuest BioTom Curry is a litigation lawyer in Toronto, a partner at Lenczner Slaght, and a speaker. He is recognized as one of the most experienced trial and appellate advocates of his generation in Canada. Tom has a long record of success in high-profile commercial litigation, class actions, arbitrations, business disputes, administrative law, judicial review, intellectual property, competition, and professional liability cases. Tom is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and is certified as a specialist in civil litigation by the Law Society of Ontario. He is a regular speaker on a wide variety of subjects relating to trial practice and substantive law. He has been recognized with the prestigious Law Society Medal, the Catzman Award, the Advocates’ Society Award for Excellence in Teaching, and, most recently, the OBA Award for Excellence in Civil Litigation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.Have a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at hello@onegreatcase.comLooking for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit https://www.tlaonline.ca/.

Most people imagine undue influence as overt manipulation: a domineering child, a vulnerable parent, and a will that suddenly changes. But the reality, undue influence often looks like routine caregiving. That’s what made Abbruzzese v Tucci so striking. At first glance, it looked like a typical estate dispute. Instead, what emerged was a rare, almost textbook convergence of every factor litigators usually struggle to prove: isolation, dependency, capacity concerns, and a sudden transfer of the family home for no consideration.Then, everything changed when a single piece of evidence emerged; something you rarely see in these files.Civil litigator David Delagran walked me through the moment the entire case took a sharp turn. A moment that revealed just how different this file was from the usual “she said / she said” estate dispute. What he uncovered suggested something more deliberate, more structured, and far more difficult to dismiss. Then I sat with Justice Gilmore, the judge who ultimately had to make sense of it all. From her vantage point, this case wasn’t just unusual; it presented a combination of factors she rarely sees align so neatly in one file. It all pointed to something beneath the surface that only became visible once she started asking the right questions. Why do some cases that look “clean” on paper unravel the moment you peel back a single layer? What happens when the usual tools for assessing capacity and intent collide with the messy realities of family relationships?In this episode, we explore all of it, from the litigation strategy to the judicial reasoning. We also talk about the deeper lessons this case offers for anyone navigating influence, vulnerability, and the fragile line between care and control.You’ll Also Learn;How dependence, isolation, and family conflict quietly lay the groundwork for influenceWhy repeated phrases and “too-consistent” explanations can be a red flag in capacity casesHow a drafting solicitor’s clean notes can mask deeper dynamics the lawyer never sawWhy contemporaneous medical assessments often reveal what retrospective reports can’tHow judges test whether a testator’s words were their own or shaped by someone elseWhat credibility looks like when family stories, expert opinions, and documents all clashWhy this case is becoming a reference point for spotting influence that hides in plain sightGuest BiosDavid Delagran is a civil litigator and partner at Beard Winter LLP in Toronto, with over 25 years of litigation experience across commercial, estates, and employment disputes. In contentious trusts and estates disputes, David represents personal and institutional estate trustees, as well as beneficiaries, in all matters arising out of the administration of trusts and estates, including administration, will challenges, dependent support claims, interpretation issues, and breaches of trust. David works together with the firm’s Estates and Trusts solicitors to form an effective multidisciplinary litigation team. Connect with David on LinkedIn. Justice Gilmore is an Estates List judge and a specialist in estates litigation. She sits in Toronto and has presided over a large variety of civil, criminal, and family cases since her appointment. She was the President of the Ontario Superior Court Judges’ Association from December 2014 to June 2017 and sitting Past President until June 2019. Justice Gilmore has passed the Level C civil servant French exam, which permits her to hear trials in French, and has been a regular educational panel member on evidentiary and advocacy issues. Connect with her on LinkedIn. About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.

On paper, SEPUSAC v. 9706151 Canada Limited seemed like a routine mortgage enforcement dispute. A borrower defaulted, the lender sold the properties, and the matter looked destined for the standard path of foreclosure. But the case quickly revealed itself to be anything but ordinary. What unfolded over the next seven years exposed how vulnerable Ontario’s mortgage enforcement framework can be to abuse. Procedural stonewalling, shameless delay tactics, chaos, havoc, opaque numbered companies, and even the suing of a judge. This was the weaponization of the rules, deployed to exhaust a borrower, delay accountability, and deprive someone of their day in court. Along the way, the litigation raised hard questions about how far bad actors can push the system. To help unpack it, I’m joined by the lawyer on the side of the borrower, Neil Colville-Reeves. After diving into what he first thought was a straightforward enforcement matter, Neil found himself navigating the uncharted territory of predatory lending and fraud. What made this case anything but the typical foreclosure litigation? And how did Neil secure an outcome no one would have predicted: a client who entered homeless but emerged with title to his properties, mortgage-free?In this episode, you’ll learn; How SEPUSAC v. 9706151 Canada Limited illustrates systemic vulnerabilities in Ontario’s mortgage enforcement regime Why rapid, improvident sales to numbered corporations signal potential fraud The strategic use of CPLs, Rule 45 motions, and Mareva injunctions in exposing fraud and preserving assets How defendants weaponized adjournments, discovery delays, and shell companies to obstruct proceedings Why the civil justice system, premised on good faith, struggles when faced with shameless actors The outcome: how a borrower who lost two properties in a predatory lending scheme ultimately recovered both, free of encumbrances Guest BioNeil Colville-Reeves is the Managing Partner of Reeves Richarz LLP. Neil has a general commercial, estates, and insurance litigation practice and has handled a broad range of matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Court of Appeal, Financial Services Commission of Ontario, License Appeal Tribunal as well as advocating on behalf of his clients in private arbitrations. Neil manages a large and diverse subrogation practice and has experience in a range of matters, including construction/engineer liability, oil spills, fire and flooding losses, product failures, municipal infrastructure failures, first responder cases, and class actions. He also defends his insurer clients and policies in first-party and liability claims involving a broad range of property-related claims, including fire and flood loss cases. Neil has acted for clients in partnership and shareholder disputes, private road associations in negotiating member agreements, as well as litigating breach of contract, estates, and construction-related matters. Neil also practices injury law. He has represented the interests of a wide range of insurers, defending policy-holders and insurers in bodily injury claims as well as defending first-party accident benefits claims. His clients also seek out his advice and representation in priority and loss transfer disputes between insurers. In recent years, Neil has taken a particular interest in assisting clients facing mortgage enforcement proceedings who can be particularly vulnerable to unscrupulous lenders. In addition to practicing law, Neil spent two years in the securities industry working in corporate finance for an investment management/merchant banking firm. In that role, he dealt extensively with the community of investment advisors and financial planners and was involved in issues relating to corporate governance in publicly-listed companies. Connect with Neil on LinkedIn. About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trust litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com. She is on the Board of Directors of the Toronto Lawyers Association. Follow One Great Case on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred app to stay up to date with the latest cases and conversations. If you’ve found the show valuable, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or share it with a colleague. Each time you do, you help another professional discover insights that can shape their practice.

A gold discovery that never was. Billions in market value wiped out. Investors are demanding answers, and banks are facing claims that could shake confidence in the entire financial system.The Bre-X scandal didn’t end when the gold vanished. In many ways, that’s when the real battle began. With billions lost and reputations in ruins, the courts became the new arena. The question was no longer whether the gold existed, but who would be held accountable for its disappearance.John Campion, senior litigator and partner at Gardiner Roberts LLP, was at the center of it all. As lead counsel for Nesbitt Burns, he was charged with defending one of Canada’s largest brokerages against claims that could have reshaped the financial industry. Billions of dollars, institutional credibility, and investor trust all hung in the balance.In this episode, John takes us inside the strategy: how he built a defense in a case with global attention, why the concept of reliance became the decisive factor, and how Bre-X ultimately triggered reforms that continue to define Canadian securities law today.How John structured a defense against billions in claims across multiple jurisdictionsWhy the legal principle of reliance became the turning point in the class actionWhat U.S. jury research revealed about investor psychology and risk-takingHow to manage media scrutiny when clients’ reputations are under siegeThe reforms Bre-X triggered in Canadian securities law and why they matter todayFor the full picture, listen to our bonus episode, where John lays out the background of the Bre-X scandal, the key players, and the overlooked red flags that led to the courtroom battles.Guest BioJohn Campion is a senior litigator and partner at Gardiner Roberts LLP with more than 45 years of experience across Canada and internationally. Over his career, he has acted in more than 300 trials, appeals, and arbitrations, representing prime ministers, heads of state, leading global corporations, and families in some of the most high-stakes disputes of the last half-century. John has appeared before the courts of ten provinces, the Federal Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and in arbitrations and tribunals around the world. His work spans corporate and commercial law, estates, regulation, and government, giving him a rare perspective at the intersection of business, policy, and justice. Beyond the courtroom, John has served as President of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, an Emeritus Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and President of the Empire Club of Canada. He has also advised the CBC, acted as counsel to prime ministers, written extensively on professional liability, and taught as an adjunct professor of law. John Campion is known not only as one of Canada’s leading senior counsel but also as a mentor, teacher, and advocate who has devoted his career to advancing both the law and the people it serves. Learn more about John here. About Your HostAreta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and wrote a column for the Alzheimer caregiver website ALZlive.com.Follow the One Great Case on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app so you get the latest episodes! If the show has been helpful, leave us a review on Apple Podcasts —or simply tell a friend about the show. Each time you share the show, you are potentially changing someone’s life!