David Badham

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of the unredacted financial statements of the corporate defendant for the years 2015 to 2017.

The plaintiff alleged the individual defendant breached a non-compete clause and sought disgorgement of benefits received by the corporate defendant.

A previous order allowed the corporate defendant to redact non-relevant information from the financial statements.

After reviewing the unredacted statements pursuant to Rule 30.06(d), the Master concluded that the redacted information was not relevant to the disgorgement claim, as the statements only provided a general high-level overview without the specific details sought by the plaintiff.

The motion for production of the unredacted statements was dismissed.

Following dismissal of an employee’s action alleging multiple breaches of an employment agreement, the employer sought costs of the action.

The employer relied on earlier offers to settle and argued it should receive substantial indemnity costs after the first refused offer.

The court held that elevated costs outside Rule 49.10 require reprehensible or egregious conduct by the opposing party.

Finding no such conduct and noting the action was hard fought but not frivolous, the court declined substantial indemnity costs and instead awarded a reduced amount under Rule 57.01.

The plaintiff, a successful retail stockbroker, sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging he was owed a 10% finder's fee on several large corporate finance transactions under an April 11, 2006 agreement.

The court found that the agreement was exclusively a retail document and did not apply to transactions involving the employer's Capital Markets group.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent overpayment of his assistant, unjust enrichment, bad faith, and entitlement to unvested deferred stock units.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant, an Ontario-based multi-national enterprise, appealed a motion judge's finding that Ontario law governed its contract with the respondent, an Alberta corporation.

The contract, which lacked a choice of law clause, was for the design and sale of a fryer and oven system that allegedly caused a fire at the respondent's plant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's application of the 'closest and most real connection' test, agreeing that the nature, subject matter, and place of performance of the contract favoured Ontario, as the system was designed and its components ordered there.

The appeal was dismissed.