Daniel J. Michaluk

The applicant municipality brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondent, a former mayor, for breaching a prior court order by disclosing confidential information during public town hall meetings.

The court found that the respondent had indeed breached the order by revealing personal information of employees from a confidential binder, and that the breach was intentional as per the legal test for civil contempt.

However, the court exercised its discretion to decline a formal finding of contempt, considering factors such as the respondent's honest belief (a mistake of law without contumacious intent), reliance on legal advice, the context of political discourse during an election campaign, the cessation of the conduct post-election, and the fundamental importance of freedom of expression.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding discovery issues in a constructive dismissal action.

The primary remaining issue was whether the plaintiff and the third party, whose interests were aligned against the defendant, should be permitted to review each other's examination for discovery transcripts before being examined themselves.

The court found a real possibility of collusion and tailoring of evidence given their close relationship and aligned pleadings.

The court ordered that the plaintiff and third party be excluded from knowing each other's discovery evidence until both examinations were completed.