David Green

The appellant contractor commenced a Small Claims Court action for unpaid invoices against the respondent homeowners, who had previously commenced a Superior Court action against the appellant for deficient roof repairs.

A Small Claims Court judge stayed the small claims action pending the resolution of the Superior Court matter.

The appellant appealed the stay order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding the stay was an interlocutory order, not a final order.

The court also declined to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, as a single judge lacked jurisdiction and the proposed application lacked apparent merit.

The appellant rock climbing facility appealed an Associate Justice's order requiring its representative to answer 16 refused questions on discovery in a personal injury action.

The questions related to hypothetical scenarios, witness statements, and the subjective interpretation of a liability waiver.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that questions requiring legal analysis, irrelevant opinions, or unfair presumptions did not need to be answered.

However, questions regarding the objective feasibility of safety measures and the subjective understanding of the waiver were ordered to be answered in writing to avoid unfair traps for a lay deponent.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The defendant in a solicitor's negligence action appealed a master's order requiring him to answer five questions refused at his examination for discovery.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal in part.

The court held that the defendant did not have to answer questions asking him to identify primary and secondary legal sources regarding testamentary capacity, as this improperly required a fact witness to conduct legal research and provide an expert opinion on the standard of care.

However, the court upheld the master's order requiring the defendant to answer questions about his understanding of his duty to ascertain testamentary capacity and regarding his professional liability insurance coverage.