Gordon Wood

The applicant brought a motion for documentary disclosure and production from the respondent and several third parties in the context of an application to set aside a 2006 settlement and final order relating to support and property claims following the parties’ common‑law relationship.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to make full disclosure of assets and income at the time of settlement, including interests in Spanish real estate, stock options, and tax liabilities.

The court found the application to set aside the settlement was not frivolous but held that many of the disclosure requests were overly vague or overly broad.

Limited disclosure was ordered, including documentary production from a bank regarding severance and stock options, authorizations permitting the applicant to obtain the respondent’s Irish tax returns, and disclosure of addresses for Spanish properties.

Costs between the parties were reserved, and no costs were ordered for the bank.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation due to mould in his apartment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a Superior Court action commenced by the applicant concerning the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

The tenant moved to set aside a Notice of Abandonment and resurrect his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding non-payment of rent and unit conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no practical need to continue with two appeals, as the tenant had another pending appeal where he could raise his evidentiary concerns.

Furthermore, the tenant provided no explanation for his six-month delay in seeking to set aside the abandonment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that work performed by the respondent was referable to an oral agreement to transfer properties to him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was supported by uncontradicted evidence and there was no basis to interfere.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to amend its pleadings to add a claim for equitable subrogation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that under Rule 26.01, the amendment must be allowed unless there is non-compensable prejudice.

The court held the claim was tenable in law and permitted the amendment without prejudice to the defendants' right to plead a limitation period defence.

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act when the respondent, Beef Terminal (1979) Limited, leased the premises and equipment of the predecessor, Beef Terminal.

The predecessor operated a comprehensive meat packing business, while the respondent operated a custom slaughterhouse using the same facilities and many of the same employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent acquired a coherent and severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was no substantial change in the character of the business to justify terminating bargaining rights under section 55(5).

The union's bargaining rights were preserved, but a related employer application under section 1(4) was dismissed.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the business character had substantially changed.