Allison Buchanan

Following a motion for further document production where the defendant was largely successful, both parties sought costs.

The defendant claimed approximately $16,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for a portion of his costs.

The court found the defendant's claimed costs grossly excessive for a simple production motion and fixed costs at $3,000 payable by the plaintiff, with an extended time to pay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 30.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order requiring the defendant to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court applied the test from Bow Helicopters, noting that a motion for a further and better affidavit requires evidence that specific documents exist that have not been produced, rather than mere speculation.

The court found that the defendant had complied with its production obligations and that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of specific missing documents.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was directed to resume the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a motions judge in a judicial review proceeding arising from an employment dispute with Tim Hortons Inc. The applicant argued that his wife should be added as a party, that the record of proceedings was incomplete, and that the respondents' facta should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error by the motions judge.

The court confirmed that the applicant's wife was not a proper party to the employment litigation, the record of proceedings was complete, and there was no basis to strike the facta or find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

An appeal from a trial judge's decision regarding the interpretation of an agreement.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation of key contractual language.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge correctly applied relevant legal principles, did not find the language ambiguous, and gave it its plain meaning with proper consideration of the surrounding provisions and circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.