Craig Stehr

The applicant, an 86-year-old long-serving volunteer Scouter, was denied renewal of his volunteer status by Scouts Canada based on alleged safety concerns and resistance to program adaptation.

The applicant brought an application seeking to have the court intervene, arguing that Scouts Canada failed to follow its own disciplinary and performance management policies.

The court found that the relationship between the volunteer and the organization was contractual in nature, giving the court jurisdiction to intervene.

The court concluded that the allegations of misconduct were unfounded and that Scouts Canada breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to follow its policies.

The court granted declaratory relief, a mandatory order for the processing of any future applications by the applicant, and substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant brought a motion to compel answers to numerous questions refused or taken under advisement during the discovery of the plaintiff’s representative.

The action involved a dispute over whether a transaction transferring investment advisors from one dealer to another constituted a share sale or an asset sale, and whether the defendant had resigned or was constructively dismissed.

The court considered the scope of relevance at discovery, the role of surrounding circumstances in contractual interpretation, and the evidentiary burden required to sustain claims of privilege.

Most questions relating to the due diligence process, the structure and purpose of the transaction vehicle, and financial information relevant to alleged constructive dismissal and damages were ordered answered.

Several questions were refused where they were speculative, irrelevant, or too remote from the issues in dispute.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after the employer replaced her during a medical leave and offered a significantly reduced position at lower pay.

The court held that the employer had already fundamentally altered the employment relationship by hiring a permanent replacement and offering only a demoted role, constituting constructive dismissal.

Summary judgment was granted on liability and reasonable notice was fixed at 15 months, including salary, benefits, and bonus entitlement.

However, genuine issues requiring trial remained regarding aggravated damages and alleged discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal subject to mitigation, while the remaining claims could proceed to further adjudication.

The defendant appealed a master's order requiring production of a lawyer's handwritten notes taken during a voluntary interview with the plaintiff when he was a potential witness in related litigation.

The defendant argued the notes were protected by litigation privilege as counsel's work product.

The court held that, to the extent the notes merely recorded the plaintiff's statements, litigation privilege did not apply because a party cannot claim confidentiality over statements made by the opposing party.

However, portions of the notes reflecting counsel's commentary, strategy, or analysis could remain privileged and be redacted.

The appeal was dismissed and the master's order permitting production with potential redactions was upheld.

The Plaintiffs, representing Air Ontario pilots, brought a class action against the Defendants, representing Air Canada pilots, alleging unlawful act conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.

The dispute arose from the failure to implement a merged pilot seniority list following an arbitration award by Michel Picher.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the Defendants' conduct was not unlawful, there was no intention to injure, no fiduciary duty was owed to the Plaintiffs, and the representations made were not actionable.

Furthermore, the court found that the Plaintiffs suffered no damages as Air Canada would never have agreed to the merged seniority list.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of notes taken by defence counsel during an interview with him conducted years earlier while he was only a potential witness in related litigation.

The court considered the scope of litigation privilege and whether it survives the conclusion of earlier related proceedings.

It held that while litigation privilege can extend to related litigation, information obtained directly from the opposing party cannot be privileged as against that party.

The court distinguished between the factual record of the interview and counsel’s work product, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the record of his statements but not counsel’s privileged annotations or memoranda.

The handwritten notes recording the interview were ordered produced, subject to potential redactions for privileged commentary.