Liza Sheard

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the defendant's Statement of Defence that alleged cause for termination.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had already admitted in its pleadings and on discovery that the termination was without cause.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring the motion despite having served a Notice of Readiness, finding that the defendant's subsequent motion regarding discovery refusals was an unexpected change in circumstances.

The court struck the impugned paragraphs, finding them irrelevant as the defendant had unequivocally pleaded that the termination was without cause and had not amended its pleadings to assert after-acquired cause.

The matter was scheduled for trial but the parties agreed to use the time for a settlement conference instead.

On the second day, the self-represented applicant abruptly withdrew from the settlement conference and demanded to proceed to trial, requesting orders for disclosure and a psychiatric assessment of the respondent.

The court found the applicant used the settlement conference to derail the trial and acted in bad faith.

Costs of $1,864.50 were awarded to the respondent on a full recovery basis pursuant to Rules 24(7) and 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving parties, Goodeve Manhire Inc. and Goodeve Manhire Partners Inc., brought a motion to compel the responding party, Tega Homes Developments Inc., to answer questions refused on an examination for discovery.

The examination was permitted following the late delivery of an expert report by Tega.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that questions relating to a withdrawn expert report, previously canvassed issues, and the expert's retainer letter were properly refused.

The court also held that the foundational information for the new expert report was adequately disclosed within the report itself.

Costs were awarded to Tega on a partial indemnity basis.

In the midst of a family law trial, the applicant served a Summons to Witness on an Area Director at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to verify the respondent's tax filings and provide expert evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to set aside the summons.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 241 of the Income Tax Act strictly prohibits the disclosure of taxpayer information.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the summonsed witness had any relevant or material evidence, and improperly sought to compel a government official to act as an expert auditor.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on his appeal from decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his capacity and the appointment of a substitute decision-maker.

The proposed evidence related to his prior capable wishes regarding treatment with Clozapine.

The court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at the original hearings with due diligence and that its reliability was questionable given the appellant's periods of incapacity.

The applicant father was entirely successful on a motion for summary judgment regarding child custody, access, and support.

He sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent mother argued against a costs award due to financial hardship and the nature of the family law dispute.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, as she brought an unrealistic custody claim to discourage the father's support application.

Despite her limited income, the court awarded the father costs of $2,200 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party sought to enforce interim minutes of settlement reached to resolve an earlier injunction motion regarding access to an industrial property to remove purchased equipment.

The responding party's lawyers were removed from the record at the start of the hearing, and the responding party's principal sought an adjournment, which was denied due to prejudice to the moving party.

The court found that the responding party had repudiated the settlement without a valid basis and that failing to enforce it would create a clear injustice.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The defendants in a defamation action brought under the simplified procedure moved for an order extending the time for oral examination for discovery from two hours to 21 hours, and for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court partially granted the request for further documentary production, ordering the plaintiff to produce documents relating to its relationship with CAIR and certain individuals, as these were relevant to the defendants' detailed plea of justification.

However, the court dismissed the request to extend the oral discovery time, finding no jurisdiction or justification to depart from the strict two-hour limit mandated by Rule 76.

The defendant brought a motion to appeal an order of a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice, which had dismissed her motion to set aside a default judgment regarding student loan and credit card debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final order of a single judge of the same court.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding bank.