Allison M. Webster

The plaintiff abattoir sued the provincial government for negligence, trespass, and conversion arising from the 19-month suspension of its licence and detention of meat products following an investigation into the processing of uninspected and dead animals.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the provincial regulator did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiff, as its statutory mandate was to protect public health.

Even if a duty existed, the regulator did not breach the standard of care given the extraordinary circumstances of concurrent criminal investigations, nor did its actions cause the plaintiff's business losses.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the third party (the Crown) to provide discovery information and re-attend examination, arguing the Crown's participation was compellable.

The Crown argued its participation was voluntary under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA), not the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA), which grants discovery rights.

The court found the third-party action was commenced under PTHIA, thus no right of discovery against the Crown, and dismissed most of the motion.

However, the court enforced a "best efforts" undertaking given by Crown counsel, emphasizing the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn an eight‑week civil trial scheduled on the running list while appeals were pending concerning a refusal to amend the statement of claim and to admit late expert valuation reports.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the appeals would not materially affect the trial and proposing procedural alternatives such as hearing evidence and awaiting appellate outcomes or bifurcating liability and damages.

Applying the principles governing adjournments, including the objective of deciding matters on their substantive merits and considerations of prejudice and fairness, the court found the pending appeals could significantly affect the pleadings and expert evidence at trial.

The court concluded that proceeding before those issues were resolved risked inefficient and potentially unfair proceedings.

The trial was therefore adjourned pending the appellate process.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a costs endorsement awarding the plaintiffs $190,000 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful interlocutory injunction motion.

The defendant argued the costs award was excessive and inconsistent with principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

Applying Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered whether there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and whether the proposed appeal raised matters of sufficient importance.

While most alleged errors were rejected, the court found that the unusually high quantum of costs for a one-day injunction motion raised serious concerns regarding reasonableness and proportionality.

Given the potential access to justice implications, leave to appeal the costs award was granted.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal or striking of allegations concerning manipulation of egg grading data and conspiracy in the Ontario egg industry.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants deliberately altered grading machine settings to include cracked or dirty eggs in Grade A packages and conspired with other industry participants to harm the plaintiffs’ business and restrict competition.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs had produced no admissible evidence and had failed to put their best foot forward.

The court held that the case involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, expert evidence concerning egg grading technology, and significant outstanding documentary production including large volumes of electronic records.

Applying the Rule 20 summary judgment framework and the “full appreciation” test, the court concluded the motion was premature and that the issues required the full machinery of a trial.

The moving defendants sought a sealing order under subsection 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to seal various motion materials, transcripts, and future filings in a commercial civil action.

The court applied the confidentiality order test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), requiring proof that disclosure would pose a serious risk to an important commercial interest and that the benefits of confidentiality outweigh the open court principle.

The only supporting evidence was an affidavit from counsel asserting that certain documents contained proprietary commercial information, but the affidavit relied on belief and unsupported assertions contrary to subrule 39.01(4) and the best evidence rule.

The court found insufficient evidence of a real and substantial risk to commercial interests and declined to give weight to the contested statements.

The motion for a sealing order was dismissed.