Donald B. Laidlaw

The applicant roofing company brought a pre-trial motion to exclude the expert evidence of an architect and engineer retained by the respondent.

The consultant had been involved in advising the respondent on roof repairs prior to and during the applicant's work.

The court held that Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to experts who are involved in the history of the subject matter, as opposed to those retained solely for litigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the consultant was permitted to provide both factual and opinion evidence at trial.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three respondent companies constituted a single employer, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under section 63.

The Board found no sale of business from CM to Pioneer and declined to treat them as a single employer, noting the union had historically treated CM and Subito as separate entities.

However, the Board found that Subito and Pioneer, despite operating at different times, were associated businesses under common direction and control.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare Subito and Pioneer a single employer, binding them to the provincial agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.