Laura Tausky

BIE Health Products brought a motion seeking production of expert instructions, communications between the Attorney General (AG) and its experts (Dr. Barbara Menzies and Errol Soriano), expert notes and draft reports, an updated AG List of Documents, and the unredacted version of an inadvertently disclosed document.

The court dismissed all aspects of BIE's motion, finding that expert instructions were adequately disclosed, no reasonable grounds existed to suspect undue interference with expert independence to warrant disclosure of communications or drafts, and the inadvertently disclosed document was subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Costs were awarded to the AG.

The plaintiff was evicted from a seniors' housing complex located on provincial land adjacent to a First Nation reserve.

She sued the federal and provincial Crowns, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability for the actions of First Nations constables and the OPP's failure to intervene.

The federal Crown moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, and the provincial Crown moved for summary judgment under Rule 20.

The court granted both motions, finding that the federal Crown owed no private law duty of care or fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and was not vicariously liable for First Nations constables.

The court also found no genuine issue for trial against the provincial Crown, as the OPP owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff in these circumstances.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 21.01(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a claim alleging negligence in the conduct of a federal tender process relating to hydroelectric facilities.

The plaintiff sought damages, declarations, and injunctive relief, alleging that a profit‑sharing requirement in the Request for Proposals was ultra vires the governing federal legislation.

The court held that Parks Canada was acting as a federal board, commission, or tribunal within the meaning of the Federal Courts Act and that the relief sought fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court under s. 18.

The court distinguished Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., finding that the action effectively challenged administrative decisions and sought traditional judicial review remedies.

The statement of claim was struck for lack of jurisdiction.