2 total
Third party's motion to set aside order quashing its interlocutory appeal dismissed as abuse of process.
The moving party (Third Party) brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its appeal from a Master's interlocutory orders regarding the procedure for a trade secrets protection motion.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Master's orders were interlocutory and properly appealable only to a judge of the Superior Court.
The court also dismissed the moving party's requests to vary the order to permit examination of opposing counsel and to delete portions of the judge's endorsement, characterizing the moving party's conduct as an abuse of process.
The responding party's cross-motion was granted in part, requiring the moving party to obtain leave before bringing further procedural motions.
Full indemnity costs were awarded against the moving party.
Unmeritorious third‑party appeal of Master’s procedural orders quashed.
The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss or quash a third party appeal from interlocutory orders of a Master concerning timelines and procedures for a protection motion relating to alleged trade secret documents.
The third party sought to set aside the Master’s orders and refer its protection motion to a judge.
The court held that the Master acted within jurisdiction, that the orders were procedural and interlocutory, and that the appeal was brought in the wrong forum and outside prescribed timelines.
Applying principles of court openness and the test for confidentiality orders from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada, the court found no evidentiary basis for the requested protection.
The plaintiff’s motion was granted, the third party’s motion dismissed, and an interim without prejudice confidentiality order was issued to facilitate continued production pending determination of the protection motion.
