John Evans

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed their motion for additional documentary production from the Crown, upheld claims of solicitor-client privilege between a Crown prosecutor and Environment Canada investigators, and allowed the Crown to claw back inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decisions, which properly applied principles of proportionality and solicitor-client privilege.

The court also found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance, as the issues were specific to the parties.

The parties sought costs following a series of motions concerning document production and privilege.

The plaintiffs had been unsuccessful on all their motions, including an attempt to set aside prior orders based on unproven allegations of fraud against the Crown.

The Crown and another defendant, Sandra Antoniani, were successful in their respective motions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Antoniani in the amount of $25,635.80.

The court awarded the Crown $25,000 in partial indemnity costs for its clawback motion and $45,000 in substantial indemnity costs for responding to the plaintiffs' motions, noting the plaintiffs' unproven allegations of fraud and unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.

The plaintiffs sued the Crown and others for misfeasance in public office and defamation related to regulatory charges.

The plaintiffs moved for further document disclosure, arguing the Crown's production was deficient compared to documents released under the Access to Information Act.

The Crown moved to claw back privileged documents inadvertently disclosed under the Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motions, finding that the different criteria for civil discovery and access to information requests explained the discrepancy in document volume.

The court upheld the Crown's claims of solicitor-client privilege over communications between the prosecutor and regulatory investigators, and found that the inadvertent disclosure did not constitute a waiver of privilege.

The plaintiffs were ordered to return and destroy the privileged documents.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, primarily relating to his dissatisfaction with his union's representation after he complained about a co-worker's racial slur.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's actions to a protected ground or establishing that the union intended to reprise against him for claiming his rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry regarding his lay-off and a failure to accommodate.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance raising substantially the same facts and issues regarding disability accommodation and lay-off.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The defendant, a federal standing Crown agent, moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis of prosecutorial immunity and failure to plead sufficient facts for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution arising from the defendant's involvement in an environmental investigation and subsequent prosecution.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, as the jurisprudence on whether other torts can be brought against prosecutors remains unsettled.

The court also found the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient material facts to support the elements of malicious prosecution.

The plaintiffs, engaged in the hazardous waste disposal business, were investigated by Environment Canada, resulting in the execution of two search warrants and the laying of charges.

The plaintiffs commenced multiple Small Claims Court actions against the Crown defendants and various officials, alleging improper conduct during the investigations and searches.

These actions were transferred to the Superior Court and consolidated.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to divide the action into four separate claims and to add new causes of action, including negligence, Charter breaches, misfeasance in public office, and malicious prosecution, as well as new parties.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding that the original pleadings contained sufficient material facts to support the alternative theories of liability, while granting the defendants leave to raise limitation period defences in respect of certain claims.

The complainant requested an order to correct the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision to 'DOT Benefits Corp.' and to add '1263699 Ontario Limited' as a jointly and severally liable party.

The Tribunal granted the request to correct the typographical error in the corporate respondent's name pursuant to section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal declined to add the new corporate entity and impose joint and several liability, noting that such a substantive change may not fall within its power to correct typographical errors, and suggested the complainant pursue enforcement remedies through the courts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a layoff.

After retaining counsel, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the application to add further particulars, cite a reprisal violation, and request additional monetary relief.

The respondent objected, arguing the request was too late and prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the additional particulars clarified the factual background, the reprisal allegation related to the original narrative, and the three-month delay after retaining counsel did not cause prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate following his termination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered the admissibility of a medical report dated March 15, 2007.

The Tribunal found the report arguably relevant to the employer's investigation of the applicant's illness and the bona fides of the termination decision, admitting it subject to limitations regarding the scope of the original complaint.

In a transitional human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the parties raised preliminary disputes regarding the scope of the pleadings.

The respondents argued the applicant improperly attempted to expand the complaint to include allegations of a poisoned work environment and mistreatment causing his disability.

The applicant argued the respondents improperly amended their response to allege the termination decision was made months prior to the actual termination.

The Tribunal held that Rule 6.3 prevents the applicant from expanding the complaint's subject matter, though the new allegations could be used to respond to the employer's performance allegations.

The Tribunal also held that Rule 7 does not prevent respondents from amending their response.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's refusal to order the replacement of an allegedly improperly constituted pension advisory committee.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as neither the Pension Benefits Act nor the pension plan required the establishment of an advisory committee, and the letters of understanding regarding the committee were part of the collective agreement but not incorporated into the pension plan.

The applicant trade union filed a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and Roy Thomson Hall are related employers.

The responding party brought a motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing there was no labour relations purpose for the declaration.

The Board found that the union's admitted purpose was to extend its bargaining rights to other locations, rather than to preserve existing rights.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 46 to dismiss the application without a hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.