Cherolyn R. Knapp

The court, at a pre-trial conference in a construction lien action concerning a dairy barn, determined that expert evidence on construction costing was necessary to resolve disputes over "Extras" and their value.

Neither party intended to call experts.

Pursuant to Rule 52.03, the court ordered the appointment of an independent expert to inquire into and report on whether the claimed extras were outside the fixed-price contract and their value, with fees to be shared initially by the parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interim injunction against a former employee and his new competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition through the use of confidential information and client solicitation.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of fiduciary duty.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged loss of business could not be directly attributed to the defendants and the plaintiffs delayed 11 months in bringing the motion.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and requested deferral pending the resolution of a Ministry of Labour complaint under the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent consented to deferral but requested that the Tribunal first address its request to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations in both proceedings were almost identical and that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal declined to address the preliminary request to dismiss prior to deferral.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act claim.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent, a 17-year employee who failed to lock-out a machine and delayed reporting the safety violation.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the trial judge erred in relying on a comparator incident involving another employee whose violation was unknown to management at the time.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that dismissal without notice was a disproportionate response given the respondent's long, almost unblemished record and the fact that his mistake did not put others at risk.