Christopher Rae

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 48.04 to bring a motion to serve an expert report regarding the definition of 'information technology professional' after the action had been set down for trial.

The defendant had pleaded that the plaintiff was exempt from overtime pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because he was an information technology professional.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had known of this defence throughout the litigation and provided no plausible explanation for the delay in seeking an expert report beyond counsel's inattention.

The plaintiff railway company sought interlocutory injunctive relief after former employees joined a direct competitor and allegedly downloaded and circulated confidential commercial information, including customer lists and revenue data, to solicit the plaintiff’s clients.

The parties agreed to an injunction preserving confidential information and restricting its use, but disputed whether an independent court-appointed monitor should oversee compliance with the order.

The court found the defendants had initially fallen short in complying with an earlier undertaking but had taken substantial remedial steps, including forensic searches, employee discipline, and written directives prohibiting use of the information.

The court concluded that appointing a monitor with broad investigative and supervisory powers would be overly intrusive into the defendant corporation’s business operations.

The court held that the contempt power and the existing order sufficiently protected the plaintiff’s interests.

The plaintiff moved to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck due to outstanding undertakings and incomplete trial readiness requirements.

The court applied the test requiring a reasonable explanation for delay and absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Although some delay involved difficulties obtaining documents and funding an expert report, the court found the delay largely attributable to the plaintiff and not reasonably explained.

The court also accepted that the long passage of time since the underlying events raised concerns about fading witness recollection.

The motion to restore the action to the trial list was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiffs, indigenous Mayan Q'eqchi' from Guatemala, sued a Canadian mining company and its subsidiaries for human rights abuses allegedly committed by security personnel at a mining project in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that a parent company does not owe a duty of care for the actions of its foreign subsidiary.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the negligence claims would fail, as the plaintiffs pleaded facts that could establish a novel duty of care.

The court also dismissed a motion to strike one of the actions as statute-barred, finding that the claim was based on sexual assault and fell within the exception in section 10 of the Limitations Act.

A human rights organization sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in three related civil actions alleging human rights abuses in Guatemala by subsidiaries of Canadian mining companies.

The proposed intervention related to pending motions by the defendants to dismiss the claims for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The proposed intervenor argued it could assist the court by providing expertise on international human rights law, transnational corporate responsibility, and the potential scope of a duty of care owed by Canadian parent corporations for overseas conduct of subsidiaries.

The court held that the organization could provide a useful legal perspective on international standards and policy considerations without interfering with the evidentiary record.

Leave to intervene was granted with limits on written and oral submissions.