Daniel Z. Naymark

The plaintiff brought a discovery motion seeking an order compelling a former employee to answer refused questions and produce documents relating to services provided to a former client after joining a competitor.

The claim alleged breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information following the departure of senior employees who subsequently serviced the same client at the competing firm.

The court applied the relevance principles governing examinations for discovery under Rules 30.03 and 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered proportionality under Rule 29.2.03.

The court found the requests were not a fishing expedition because the pleadings contained specific allegations and there was circumstantial evidence supporting the line of inquiry.

The refused questions were ordered to be answered and related documents produced, subject to redaction of irrelevant commercially sensitive information.

The spouses of two bankrupt individuals and related family trusts moved to set aside or vary an ex parte order obtained by the bankruptcy trustee that authorized production of financial records and permitted the registration of certificates of pending litigation against matrimonial homes held in the spouses’ names.

The applicants argued that the trustee improperly proceeded without notice, failed to provide full and fair disclosure, and did not follow statutory investigative steps under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act before seeking court relief.

The court held that the trustee had reasonable grounds to proceed ex parte due to concerns that the bankrupts might encumber the properties and that there had been no material non‑disclosure.

However, the court found that the authorization of certificates of pending litigation was procedurally irregular because no proceeding claiming an interest in land had yet been commenced.

The order was varied so that the certificates would be discharged unless the trustee commenced a proceeding asserting an interest in the properties within a specified period.

The TD defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff alleged that the TD defendants transferred her share of lottery winnings out of the jurisdiction at her ex-boyfriend's request, despite knowing of her interest and a court preservation order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the plaintiff's claim for a declaration of contempt of court should be struck, finding reason to doubt the correctness of allowing such a claim in a civil action.

Leave to appeal was denied for the negligence, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and preservation order validity issues.