Gregory Paul Mallia

This decision addresses a summary judgment motion by Security National Insurance Company (SN) seeking to dismiss claims for unidentified automobile and family protection coverage.

The central issue was whether the deceased, Lawrence Hamel, and the named insured, Yvonne Moelker, qualified as "spouses" under the Insurance Act and OPCF 44R endorsement, given they maintained separate residences due to Hamel's mental health.

SN argued for a strict co-residence requirement, while the plaintiffs and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund advocated for a broader interpretation aligned with family law's dependency context.

The court dismissed SN's motion, adopting the expansive, holistic definition of "spouse" from the Family Law Act, which does not mandate shared dwelling, finding that Yvonne and Larry were indeed spouses.

The applicants, Stress-Crete Limited and King Luminaire Company Inc., sought a permanent injunction against their former employee, Stephen Harriman, to prevent him from breaching non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses in his employment agreement by working for a direct competitor.

The court found the non-competition clause ambiguous and unenforceable due to its overly broad geographical scope.

However, the non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions were deemed clear, reasonable, and enforceable.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the applicants from the use of confidential information and solicitation, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicants regarding these latter provisions.

The motion for a permanent injunction was granted in part, restraining Harriman from soliciting former clients and employees and from using confidential information for two years.

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of outstanding undertakings from discovery, including employment, insurance, and medical records, production of photographs and Facebook content, and an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a bone scan as part of an independent medical examination.

The court held that a party who undertakes to obtain records from non-parties must take reasonable follow‑up steps where appropriate.

The court ordered the plaintiff to follow up with certain third parties and to serve a supplementary affidavit of documents disclosing relevant photographs depicting her activities before and after the accident.

However, the request for full access to the plaintiff’s Facebook profile was denied due to lack of evidence that relevant documents had been omitted.

The court further ordered the plaintiff to undergo the bone scan recommended by the defence medical examiner, finding it necessary for trial fairness.