Andrew McCreary

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to prevent cross-examinations on affidavits filed for his motion to enforce a settlement, arguing the action was under the Rule 76 Simplified Procedure which prohibits such cross-examinations.

The defendant corporation opposed, arguing the motion to enforce a settlement is akin to a summary judgment motion requiring cross-examinations.

The court held that Rule 76 is not an absolute bar to cross-examinations in this context and that the two-step approach for enforcing settlements requires both parties to put their best foot forward.

The court extended the deadline for cross-examinations and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of the case conference.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant terminated his fixed-term contract without notice.

The court found that the termination clause did not clearly allow for termination without notice, and any ambiguity was resolved against the defendant who drafted the contract.

The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the remainder of the one-year term.

The court awarded damages of $21,034.01, accounting for the plaintiff's mitigation of damages by finding new employment and a decline in the real estate market.

A former senior employee moved to set aside an ex parte Anton Piller Order obtained by his former employer after he resigned and joined a competing shipbuilding company.

The employer alleged the employee had downloaded thousands of pages of confidential documents and might misuse them in connection with government shipbuilding bids.

On review, the court held that the stringent requirements for an Anton Piller order were not met, particularly the requirements of very serious damage and a real risk that evidence would be destroyed.

The court also found that the moving party had failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, including misstatements regarding an alleged competing government bid and the competitive relationship between the companies.

Given the absence of serious harm, the availability of less intrusive remedies, and the disclosure deficiencies, the Anton Piller order was set aside.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for breaching their duty of fidelity by communicating the respondent's confidential information to a competitor to assist in a government tender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on liability, causation, and damages.

The respondent's cross-appeal alleging inducing breach of contract against one of the appellants was also dismissed.