Jeffrey Mitchell

The plaintiff's lawyer of record passed away, and his firm brought a motion to be removed from the record and for a charging order.

The motion was adjourned because adverse parties raised concerns about the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reviewed the legal framework for appointing a litigation guardian and ordering a capacity assessment under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act.

The court directed the parties to consult and establish a framework to address the plaintiff's capacity before proceeding with the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant's representative to answer a refused question from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligent repair of an ATV.

The refused question asked the representative to agree that if the threads on the axle were intact, the only way the tire could come off was if the cotter pin was missing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the question improperly sought an expert opinion on a hypothetical matter from a layperson.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction that enforced a non-competition clause and prevented the individual defendant from working for the corporate defendant for six weeks.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the RJR-Macdonald test.

The court also noted that the non-competition period had already expired, rendering the matter largely moot and not of public importance.

In an interim decision regarding consolidated human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed procedural issues concerning documentary disclosure and representation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with their disclosure obligations within 14 days, noting that a change in counsel's firm did not excuse the delay.

Additionally, the Tribunal directed one of the applicants to confirm whether she was being represented by the other applicant, and if so, required the representative to provide her Law Society license number or identify the applicable exemption.

The applicant alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a settlement package.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress due to her pregnancy and was misled about the circumstances of her termination.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or fraudulent misrepresentation, concluding the applicant freely entered into the settlement after obtaining legal advice.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer engaged in an unlawful lock-out and committed an unfair labour practice during collective bargaining.

The union argued the lock-out was unlawful because the employer had pressed to impasse a demand that the union waive its statutory rights to pursue grievances and Board applications regarding contracting out.

The Board found that while the employer's final offer included such a demand, the offer was withdrawn prior to the lock-out and was not pressed to impasse.

The union also alleged the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act by distributing its final offer directly to employees.

The Board dismissed this complaint, finding the communication was an accurate explanation of the offer, provided after the union was informed, and did not constitute an attempt to bargain directly with employees.