Jordan Sewell

The defendant moved for production of the plaintiff's accounting records pursuant to a 'best efforts' undertaking given at discovery.

The plaintiff, who claims over $2 million in lost profits from his gas station and variety store, argued he was not required to create formal accounting books.

The court held that 'books' in this context included the plaintiff's revenue and expense records, which were relevant and within his control.

The court ordered production of the records but allowed temporary redaction of supplier names pending a potential motion by the plaintiff for a protective order regarding commercially sensitive information.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the subject lands were never surrendered to the Crown and remain reserve lands.

The parties informed the Tribunal of a conditional agreement for the MBQ to purchase the lands, which would result in the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the motion to allow time for the sale to close or, alternatively, for the MBQ to serve Notices of a constitutional question on the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, the Tribunal addressed competing motions from the appellant and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ).

MBQ raised a jurisdictional challenge based on an ongoing federal land claim encompassing the subject property.

The Tribunal converted the scheduled motion date to a CMC and ordered that MBQ's jurisdictional motion be heard first, as it forms the foundation of the appeal, with the appellant's motion to be scheduled subsequently.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the failure of the approval authority to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte were granted party status due to an ongoing land claim encompassing the subject property.

The Tribunal determined it was premature to schedule a merit hearing until a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the land claim is heard and decided.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, seeking to terminate his $1,400 monthly payments due to his early retirement and the applicant wife's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on both parties' increased incomes and the husband's early retirement.

However, the court held that the wife was still entitled to support given the length of the marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Spousal support was reduced to $700 per month for 12 months, and thereafter to $1 per year until the husband turns 65, at which point it will terminate.

The appellant claimed she suffered pregnancy complications after a police officer wrongfully confiscated her car in August 2009.

She pursued a police complaint and was informed of the outcome in November 2012.

She commenced a negligence action in October 2013.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the limitation period began to run on the date of the incident, as the appellant knew the material facts giving rise to her claim at that time.