Hedy Epstein

The appellant, a former police officer, was investigated for corruption and bribery.

Police obtained a wiretap authorization based on an affidavit that deliberately misdescribed a police agent as a confidential informant.

The appellant was charged criminally based on intercepted communications, but the charges were eventually withdrawn by the Crown due to anticipated Charter breaches regarding the wiretap.

The appellant then sued the investigators and police board for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other civil wrongs.

The trial judge dismissed the action, admitting the wiretap evidence and finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the wiretap evidence was properly admitted in the civil trial to establish the truth of the grounds for the charges, and that the trial judge made no error in finding that the investigators had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices, and the defendant counterclaimed alleging fraudulent overbilling.

During a case management conference, the court heard from witnesses regarding the billing system to clarify facts.

The defendant subsequently argued these discussions were without prejudice settlement discussions and sought to limit a witness's affidavit.

The court rejected this argument, holding that under the Rules of Civil Procedure and its inherent jurisdiction, it has broad case management powers to make procedural orders and clarify facts to advance the case to a summary trial.

The court ordered the preparation of the affidavit and set a timetable for the summary trial.

Following two attendances related to applications concerning a limitation issue under the Real Property Limitations Act, the court determined that the matters would require viva voce evidence and should be heard with a related action.

The parties were invited to make written submissions on costs for the attendances.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the conduct of the parties and the proportionality principle.

As the applications did not proceed on their merits and all parties contributed to the adjournments, the court concluded that no party should recover costs.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs for the two appearances.