2 total
The court resolved cross-motions for undertakings and refusals, ordering mutual disclosure of relevant documents while upholding litigation privilege over an investigative report.
The plaintiff, CLC Tree Services Ltd., brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, alleging that the City of London granted preferential treatment in awarding arboricultural and vegetation management contracts to Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada, Limited to the exclusion of CLC.
The defendant, the City of London, brought a cross-motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from CLC's examination, arguing that CLC's allegations were based on rumours and unnamed sources and that the scope of the claim needed to be defined.
The court addressed numerous undertakings and refusals, emphasizing the importance of parties working collaboratively to resolve discovery disputes and the broad scope of oral discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court granted many of CLC's requests for disclosure while also ordering CLC to provide greater particularity regarding its damages claims and the factual basis for its allegations.
Appeal dismissed; claims against former employees for secretly obtaining a lease were statute-barred.
The appellant, a gas station operator, appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim against its former landlord and two former employees.
The employees had secretly negotiated a head lease for the gas station premises after the appellant's lease expired and it refused the landlord's terms.
The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and inducing breach of contract as statute-barred, finding the appellant knew of the employees' actions more than two years before filing the counterclaim.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings on discoverability and the lack of intent by the landlord to induce a breach of contract, dismissing the appeal.