Alexander Gay

The parties brought cross-motions arising from examinations for discovery in an action concerning a cancelled procurement process for visa application centres.

The defendant sought further financial documents from the plaintiff, which the court dismissed, finding the plaintiff had already produced all existing relevant documents.

The plaintiff sought answers to several refused questions.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose the name of its forensic accountant or undertake not to call them at trial, produce communications with third parties as common interest privilege did not apply, answer whether it could cancel the procurement at will, and produce a 2005 contract.

The court upheld the defendant's refusal to disclose the contract's Approval Value due to Cabinet confidence privilege.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claims, the successful defendants (the Attorney General of Canada and an individual) sought partial indemnity costs of $16,084.

The plaintiff objected to the hourly rates proposed for Crown counsel, arguing they exceeded internal department rates and violated the indemnity principle.

The court rejected this argument, applying the principle that costs for salaried government lawyers should be fixed as though they were independent outside counsel.

The court found the proposed rates reasonable and awarded the requested costs.

The defendant in a $195 million procurement dispute served summonses on three non-party witnesses for examination prior to a summary judgment motion.

The non-parties and plaintiffs moved to quash the summonses, arguing they were an abuse of process due to short notice, failure to provide relevant pleadings, and overly broad document requests.

The court agreed, finding the defendant's conduct in serving the summonses and refusing a brief postponement constituted an abuse of process.

The summonses were quashed, and the defendant's motion to compel answers to refusals was dismissed.

In an action concerning a procurement process for Visa Application Centre services, the parties sought to settle the terms of a confidentiality order governing the disclosure of Third Party Information.

The sole issue was the wording of a paragraph dictating the scope of submissions that affected Third Parties could make on a future motion to determine confidentiality.

The plaintiffs argued for a narrower scope, while the defendant and Third Parties argued for a broader scope.

The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed wording, finding it addressed issues clearly relevant to the Third Parties without tying the hands of the judge hearing the future motion, but noted this did not necessarily preclude Third Parties from raising other issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for particulars and an extension of time to deliver a reply, achieving mixed success.

The court ordered the defendant to provide one critical particular regarding the value of a contract, while dismissing the other requests.

The parties could not agree on costs.

Given the mixed success and the early stage of the case-managed action, the court ordered that the costs of the motion be payable in the cause.

Multiple procedural motions arose in two related aviation negligence actions seeking recovery of insured losses after aircraft hydroplaned and left runways at Ottawa International Airport.

The plaintiffs sought coordinated case management, common discoveries and production, and trial management orders, while the defendants challenged the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and disputes arose regarding discovery scheduling.

The court ordered that the actions proceed under joint case management with common discoveries and productions on overlapping issues and removed the deemed undertaking as between the two proceedings.

Leave was granted for extended examinations for discovery due to the limited availability of a key pilot witness.

The court directed further review of the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and reserved remaining issues, including sanctions and costs, for later determination.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought $12,944.96 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued that success was divided because part of the claim had been found premature and sought a reduced award.

The court held that the defendants were the successful party and that the general rule awarding costs to the successful party applied.

The hourly rates and time expended by defence counsel were found to be reasonable.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendants.

The defendants moved under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s defamation action arising from allegations made during his service as a Canadian Armed Forces officer.

The court held that the claim arose directly from the employment relationship and should first be addressed through the military grievance process under the National Defence Act framework.

Because that statutory grievance procedure was capable of addressing the underlying issues, the civil action constituted an abuse of process and was premature.

The court also held that certain pleaded claims relating to publications and broadcasts were barred due to non-compliance with the notice requirements of the Libel and Slander Act.

The action was dismissed, with alternative findings that it could be stayed pending determination of entitlement to compensation for a service-related injury and that specified paragraphs of the pleading were struck.

The defendant appealed a master's order requiring production of a lawyer's handwritten notes taken during a voluntary interview with the plaintiff when he was a potential witness in related litigation.

The defendant argued the notes were protected by litigation privilege as counsel's work product.

The court held that, to the extent the notes merely recorded the plaintiff's statements, litigation privilege did not apply because a party cannot claim confidentiality over statements made by the opposing party.

However, portions of the notes reflecting counsel's commentary, strategy, or analysis could remain privileged and be redacted.

The appeal was dismissed and the master's order permitting production with potential redactions was upheld.

A costs endorsement following prior proceedings between a self-represented plaintiff and multiple defendants including federal officials and the Attorney General of Canada.

The parties consented to the disposition of costs.

The court fixed costs in favour of the defendants in a nominal amount payable by the plaintiff forthwith.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a negligence action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by correctional authorities in relation to the murder of her son while he was incarcerated, arguing that the claim was only discovered after a coroner’s inquest and report revealed additional information about officer misconduct and possible obstruction of the police investigation.

The court held that the claim was discovered when the plaintiff received the Board of Investigation report in 2005, which identified failures by correctional officers to follow institutional policies and procedures.

Later information from the inquest and coroner’s report merely provided further evidence supporting an already discoverable claim.

There was no evidence of fraudulent concealment that would suspend the limitation period.

The action commenced in 2010 was therefore outside the two‑year limitation period.