John Goudy

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike evidence tendered by the defendant in advance of the penalty phase of a contempt trial.

The defendant sought to introduce fresh engineering evidence to argue that the original judgment regarding surface water drainage was based on incorrect factual findings.

The court granted the motion and struck the evidence, finding that the affidavits contained improper argument and hearsay, failed to comply with expert report rules, and did not meet the test for fresh evidence.

Furthermore, the court held that allowing the evidence would permit a collateral attack on the final judgment, violate issue estoppel, and constitute an abuse of process.

During a case conference in an ongoing contempt proceeding, the defendant indicated an intention to bring a motion for a new trial and to admit fresh evidence.

The plaintiff objected, characterizing the proposed evidence as a collateral attack on a prior unappealed judgment.

The court vacated the upcoming trial dates and set a timetable for the plaintiff to bring a motion to strike the disputed evidence before the trial continues.

The Plaintiffs, representing Air Ontario pilots, brought a class action against the Defendants, representing Air Canada pilots, alleging unlawful act conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.

The dispute arose from the failure to implement a merged pilot seniority list following an arbitration award by Michel Picher.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the Defendants' conduct was not unlawful, there was no intention to injure, no fiduciary duty was owed to the Plaintiffs, and the representations made were not actionable.

Furthermore, the court found that the Plaintiffs suffered no damages as Air Canada would never have agreed to the merged seniority list.