D. Mayer

At a case conference, the plaintiffs requested copies of all media documents listed in Schedule A of the defendants' Affidavit of Documents.

The defendants argued that the cost of reviewing, redacting, and copying the files would be prohibitive and offered inspection instead.

The court held that the defendants complied with Rule 30.04 by offering inspection and ordered that the plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents at the Crown's offices.

The court also renewed an order prohibiting the recording and posting of discovery proceedings on social media.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the Crown, his former union (AMAPCEO), and the union's legal counsel, alleging conspiracy and misfeasance in public office related to his 2014 termination and subsequent grievance proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action against all defendants.

The court found the claims against the Crown were barred by res judicata from a prior dismissed action and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The claims against the union defendants were similarly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The claims against the union's lawyers were dismissed as statute-barred and because the lawyers owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.