Claudio Martini

On a reference concerning the admissibility of proposed expert evidence, the court considered whether an accountant’s report met the criteria for expert evidence under the framework established in R. v. Mohan.

The issue focused on the necessity requirement and whether the expert’s opinion would assist the trier of fact through independent analysis.

The court found the report was based largely on the applicant’s instructions and assumptions rather than the expert’s own analysis and conclusions.

As a result, the evidence lacked the independence required of expert opinion evidence and functioned merely as advocacy for the applicant’s position.

The proposed expert evidence was therefore excluded.

The defendant Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with documentary production obligations and court‑ordered timetables under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant argued the plaintiff had repeatedly breached production orders over many years and had effectively manipulated the court process.

The court held that although the plaintiff had not fully complied with certain production orders, the record demonstrated ongoing document production and substantial efforts by counsel to comply.

The alleged prejudice arising from delay was largely speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The court concluded the plaintiff had not abused the court process and that dismissal was unwarranted.

A developer sued a municipality alleging breach of a supplementary subdivision agreement governing allocation of sewage capacity for a commercial and residential development.

The agreement provided that additional sewer capacity in the municipal system was reserved for the developer’s subdivision and that the municipality would not allocate capacity to lands outside the subdivision until the development was fully built out.

The municipality nevertheless allocated capacity to an adjacent development and expropriated a one‑foot reserve to allow connection.

The court interpreted the contractual language in light of the factual matrix and held the agreement granted the developer priority to available capacity.

The municipality breached the agreement by allocating capacity to the neighbouring development before completion of the subdivision.

The plaintiff proved loss‑of‑chance damages for lost leasing opportunities and was awarded compensatory damages, but punitive damages were denied.

Following dismissal of a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing an action for delay under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs of the motion.

The successful defendants sought substantial costs, with one defendant relying on an offer to settle to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the applicable principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

While accepting the reasonableness of one defendant’s costs outline, the court found another defendant’s claimed hours excessive.

Taking into account the offer to settle and overall fairness, the court fixed equal costs awards payable by the plaintiffs to each successful defendant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which involved allegations of improper diversion of corporate funds and an improvident sale of land, had been dormant for an extended period.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the litigation delay, failed to prove inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose due to the passage of time and the expiration of limitation periods.

The motion was dismissed.