Antoine D’Ailly

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to serve a supplementary affidavit of documents and to disclose correspondence with Weichart Workforce Mobility Canada ULC and Ford Motor Company, relating to the sale of the property and relocation benefits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve a supplementary affidavit and to make best efforts to disclose the requested records, finding them relevant to damages and mitigation.

The court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for non-disclosure, finding such a sanction disproportionate.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $9,500, to be paid at the conclusion of the proceeding.

The respondents (Stewart and her business) brought a motion seeking an order to cross-examine the applicant's affiants and for leave to file their own affidavit evidence at a later time.

They argued that their right to silence in ongoing Provincial Offences Act proceedings justified delaying the filing of their evidence.

The applicant (Health Unit) did not oppose cross-examination but contended that the respondents must first file their affidavits as required by Rule 39.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents failed to meet the test for advance leave under Rule 39.02(2).

The judge held that the right to silence in quasi-criminal proceedings did not outweigh the prejudice to the applicant or justify circumventing the civil procedural rules, which require parties to put all relevant evidence forward before cross-examination to ensure fundamental fairness and efficiency.

The applicant condominium corporation sought declarations, injunctions, and compliance orders requiring the respondent unit owners to wear masks in the common elements, alleging their refusal constituted a dangerous activity under s. 117 of the Condominium Act.

The respondents claimed medical exemptions under provincial regulations and municipal by-laws, which did not require proof of exemption.

The court balanced the competing rights, finding that while the respondents could transit through common elements for ingress and egress without a mask due to their claimed exemptions, wandering or exercising on other floors without a mask constituted a dangerous activity.

The court issued a compliance order and permanent injunction restricting the respondents' unmasked movement to direct ingress and egress.