Eric T. Gresham

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (AFAC), particularly a claim for negligent investigation against the employer.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion under Rule 26 to further amend the AFAC, including adding claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and defamation with malice.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the negligent investigation claim, affirming that the tort does not extend to employers conducting internal investigations, even with recent OHSA amendments.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, allowing amendments for intentional infliction of mental distress and certain defamation particulars, and for rephrasing reputation paragraphs, but denied other proposed amendments due to late filing and procedural fairness concerns.

The respondents sought costs following their substantial success on a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for access to personal information.

The self-represented applicant argued he was successful because he was granted leave to amend, and objected to costs being awarded to in-house counsel.

The court found the respondents were substantially successful and awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,000, noting that section 36 of the Solicitors Act permits costs awards for in-house counsel.

The applicant sought comprehensive access to his personal information from his employer, Magna International Inc. and Venest Industries Inc., based on his employment contract and company policies.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the court lacked jurisdiction over matters related to PIPEDA.

The court granted the respondents' motion in part, striking the applicant's broad prayer for relief as not supported by company policies, but granted leave to amend the application to seek more specific disclosure.

The court affirmed it lacked jurisdiction over disputes arising under PIPEDA.