2 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 26, 2020 order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed in the amount of $5,000 to the responding party.
Court compels discovery answers where policy‑versus‑operational distinction unresolved.
In a negligence action arising from a fatal swing‑stage collapse during construction, a defendant moved to compel answers to numerous refusals given by the Ministry of Labour’s representative during discovery.
The Ministry argued that questions relating to inspector training, experience, workload, and inspection decisions were irrelevant because they concerned non‑justiciable core policy decisions involving allocation of governmental resources.
The court held that it was premature on a refusals motion to determine whether the inspection decisions were policy or operational, and that the pleadings alleged negligent inspection and failure to enforce safety obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
As a result, questions concerning the inspector’s qualifications, workload, sector plans, internal guidelines, prior incidents, and certain post‑incident changes were relevant and proportionate.
Most refusals were ordered answered, some were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the moving defendant.
