Law360 Canada (July 2, 2024, 11:58 AM EDT) -- Application by Viking Air Limited (“Viking”) for pretrial return of its aircraft, associated records and components from Cascade Aerospace Inc (“Cascade”). Viking contracted with Cascade to complete certain work on its aircraft as part of a larger avionics upgrade program (“AUP”). Aircraft avionics were the electronic systems used for communication, navigation and the display and management of other aircraft systems. The AUP involved Cascade installing an avionics system bought by Viking. The work did not proceed as expected. Cascade's work was paused while the parties discussed the potential termination of their contractual relationship. Viking asked for the return of its two aircraft that were in Cascade's possession. Cascade returned one aircraft but refused to return the other (“CL-215T Property”). Cascade claimed it was entitled to retain the CL-215T Property because it had a lien over the aircraft and the terms of the parties' contract allowed it to retain the aircraft. Cascade submitted that an order requiring the return of the CL-215T Property had the effect of granting judgment to Viking without a trial or full evidentiary record. Cascade had undertaken to preserve the CL-215T aircraft and suggested that a speedy trial was a more appropriate approach....