Giuseppe Agostino

The moving party brought a motion seeking to compel the responding party to answer discovery questions and produce income tax and bank records, alleging that newly discovered evidence of dividend payments undermined a prior decision sustaining discovery refusals.

The court dismissed the motion on the basis of issue estoppel, finding that the moving party's abandonment of its earlier appeal rendered the prior associate justice's decision final.

The court held that the new evidence of co-defendant dividend payments did not demonstrate that the responding party had received income from co-defendants or had misrepresented facts at discovery.

Costs submissions were reserved.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to include a claim for human rights damages, which he had initially pursued before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRTO application was dismissed after the defendant successfully argued that all issues, including human rights allegations, should be heard in the civil action.

The defendant subsequently opposed the amendment in the civil action, citing abuse of process and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding it would be unfair to deny the amendment given the defendant's prior position.

The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but rather sought a different remedy arising from the same factual matrix originally pleaded, thus not being statute-barred.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff, David Moskowitz, did not oppose the amendment but sought costs thrown away from cancelled discoveries as a term of the amendment, and also requested case management and a litigation timetable.

The court granted leave to amend without awarding costs thrown away to the plaintiff, denied the request for case management, but imposed a litigation timetable.

The court found the plaintiff's position on costs disproportionate and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) appealed an Associate Justice's decision regarding refusals motions during discovery in two related actions.

The TTC alleged conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against Ronald Howard Spaeth, Specbilt Enterprises Inc., and Michael Hickey, claiming they manipulated procurement processes and overcharged for parts.

Mr. Hickey also sued TTC for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal concerned the production of financial records, bank records, and documents related to the relationship between Mr. Spaeth and Prostuff Group.

The court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Associate Justice erred in principle by overly limiting the scope of relevant documents for production, particularly regarding financial records and supplier transactions, and the relationship between Mr. Spaeth and Prostuff Group, but upheld the refusal for general payroll records.

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of documents identifying the source of income reported in the plaintiff's and Analitix Group Inc.'s income tax returns for 2013-2017, including T4s and T4As.

This request arose during discovery in a wrongful termination action where the plaintiff's employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) was a key issue.

The court found the request to be a proper follow-up question and relevant to the pleadings, particularly concerning whether the plaintiff worked exclusively for the defendant.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested documents, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, dismissed without cause from her Group Station Manager position at the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), moved for summary judgment in her wrongful dismissal claim.

She sought damages based on a 12-month notice period, loss of benefits, and pregnancy-related top-ups, as well as aggravated and moral damages for unpaid vacation and breach of confidence regarding her pregnancy.

The TTC argued for a 4-month notice period and disputed other claims.

The plaintiff abandoned her claims for moral and aggravated damages to proceed with the summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial, primarily due to a significant factual dispute regarding the character of the plaintiff's employment (senior vs. mid-level manager) which directly impacted the appropriate notice period and the reasonableness of her mitigation efforts.