Bryce Vincent Geoffrey

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to amend their statement of claim to increase damages, and for various orders concerning discovery, including the location and manner of examining the individual defendants and the adequacy of document production, particularly electronic documents and meta-data.

The defendants had relocated multiple times, complicating discovery.

The court granted leave to amend the claim, directed the individual defendants to be examined in Ottawa with alternative arrangements for examination in Europe, and found the defendants' document production deficient.

It ordered the production of Google logs/meta-data and an index for certain document folders, emphasizing collaborative discovery planning and the timely handling of confidential information through appropriate orders.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that money received from the deceased was not a gift and that the storage of property at an abandoned school did not constitute a bailment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conclusions were well-supported by the record, and awarded costs of $7,000 to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a defamation and malicious prosecution action arising from workplace harassment complaints made by co-employees in federal corrections.

The motion judge had held that s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act barred the action because the appellant had received disability pensions funded from public sources.

The Court of Appeal held the record did not permit a finding that the respondents acted within the scope of their employment, particularly given allegations of malice that had to be assumed true on a Rule 21 motion.

It further held that s. 9 does not immunize Crown servants without regard to the capacity in which they acted.

The appeal was allowed and the dismissal order was set aside.