Janice Payne

The plaintiff moved to reopen a prior decision that had set aside an Anton Piller Order obtained against a former employee who joined a competitor, seeking to introduce fresh evidence allegedly showing the defendant and a third‑party competitor misled the court about future competition and misuse of confidential information.

The court applied the test for admission of fresh evidence, requiring proof that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence and that it would probably have changed the result.

The alleged new material largely concerned post‑hearing developments, including lobbying activities, industry publications, and a later government refit contract, which at most demonstrated potential future competition.

The court held that such evidence was irrelevant to the purpose of an Anton Piller Order, which is limited to preserving evidence of past wrongdoing.

The moving party therefore failed to show the evidence would have altered the earlier decision or remedied the prior failure to provide full and frank disclosure.

A former senior employee moved to set aside an ex parte Anton Piller Order obtained by his former employer after he resigned and joined a competing shipbuilding company.

The employer alleged the employee had downloaded thousands of pages of confidential documents and might misuse them in connection with government shipbuilding bids.

On review, the court held that the stringent requirements for an Anton Piller order were not met, particularly the requirements of very serious damage and a real risk that evidence would be destroyed.

The court also found that the moving party had failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, including misstatements regarding an alleged competing government bid and the competitive relationship between the companies.

Given the absence of serious harm, the availability of less intrusive remedies, and the disclosure deficiencies, the Anton Piller order was set aside.

The defendant, Dr. Lalonde, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against him for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a former CFO of the co-defendant SOGC, alleged that Lalonde committed intentional torts including deceit, intentional interference with contractual relations, inducing breach of contract, and sexual harassment.

The court found that the pleadings failed to establish the essential elements of the intentional torts, particularly the requisite intent and reliance.

The court also held that there is no freestanding tort of harassment.

The claim against Lalonde was struck, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.