Kevin Egan

The applicant, the Prime Minister of Canada, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the criminal trial of the respondent, who was charged with assault with a weapon for throwing gravel at the applicant during a campaign event.

The court quashed the subpoena on three independent grounds: the respondent failed to show the applicant was likely to give material and necessary evidence; the subpoena was an abuse of process intended for political purposes rather than legal ones; and the applicant enjoyed absolute parliamentary privilege providing testimonial immunity while Parliament is in session.

The plaintiff sued the defendant police service for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and wrongful arrest after criminal charges against him were withdrawn.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during discovery, arguing that communications between the plaintiff and his criminal defence lawyer were relevant to whether the charges were terminated in his favour.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the communications irrelevant to the tort claims and protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived.

The court also declined to order the plaintiff to obtain records for a destroyed cellphone owned by a third party.

The defendants in two related class actions brought motions to compel the representative plaintiffs to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' individual medical and employment histories, reasons for detention, and other individual experiences.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, holding that discovery prior to a common issues trial is limited to the common issues.

The court found that the individual damages questions were not relevant to the common issues of systemic negligence or aggregate damages, which must be determined without reference to the circumstances of individual class members.

The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment and Charter violations after being denied accelerated parole review due to the retrospective application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, which was later found unconstitutional.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing government immunity for legislative acts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff pleaded sufficient material facts that, if true, could establish the government acted in bad faith by knowingly enacting unconstitutional legislation in violation of s. 11(i) of the Charter.

The plaintiffs, former inmates of the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, brought a motion to certify a class action against the provincial Crown alleging systemic negligence and Charter breaches resulting from overcrowding and inadequate supervision.

The Crown opposed certification and moved to strike portions of the claim and evidence.

The court struck the claim for breach of fiduciary duty but found the pleadings otherwise disclosed reasonable causes of action in systemic negligence and Charter breaches.

The court admitted the plaintiffs' evidence for the limited purpose of the certification motion and concluded that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The motion for certification was granted.