Chad Pilkington

In a certified class action regarding allegedly defective MINI Cooper vehicles, the defendants brought a motion seeking a declaration that the German defendant, BMW-AG, could produce documents using a 'layered approach' to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR).

This approach involved initially redacting all personal data.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure required unredacted production.

The court held that the relevance scrutiny inherent in the Rules of Civil Procedure satisfies the 'Legitimate Interests Exception' under the foreign privacy laws.

The court ordered BMW-AG to produce documents in accordance with a modified Rule 30.03, allowing redactions only for privileged information and personal data that is not relevant to any issue in the action.

The plaintiff in a certified class action brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on the defendants' affidavits of documents.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the questions regarding the scope of documentary production, missing documents, and search terms were premature and irrelevant because the parties had not yet settled a discovery plan.

The court held that the scope of documentary discovery must be determined on the pending discovery plan motion before the adequacy of the affidavits of documents could be assessed.

The applicant estate sought a preservation order to prevent the respondent mining company from dealing with a 1.5% net smelter return royalty interest.

The interest had escheated to the Crown after the corporate owner was dissolved in 1989, and was recently sold by the Public Guardian and Trustee to the respondent.

The applicant acknowledged lacking standing to challenge the sale without a special statute to revive the dissolved corporation, which the Legislature had already refused to pass.

The court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 45.01 does not permit a standalone application for a preservation order in contemplation of a future, possible lawsuit by a party that currently lacks standing.

The respondent, a UK-based company, brought a motion to stay the application against it for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, or to set aside service ex juris.

The applicant cross-moved to amend its Notice of Application to plead additional grounds for service outside Ontario and to add a claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

However, while the court found service ex juris was validly effected under the amended rules, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter over the foreign respondent because none of the presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda were established.

The application against the foreign respondent was stayed.

Following a declaration that the respondents were vexatious litigants, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondents' abusive conduct.

However, the court reduced the costs claimed by one applicant because their counsel was located in Toronto, finding it unreasonable to expect the unsuccessful party to pay higher Toronto rates for a matter heard in the Ottawa region.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiffs conceded entitlement but disputed the quantum and requested payment in instalments.

The court noted the plaintiffs' history of non-payment of prior costs awards and concerns about the merits of their case due to related proceedings.

The court ordered security for costs in the amount of $93,419.70, deducting anticipated trial and mediation costs, payable in three instalments.