Michael Krylov

The applicants commenced an application under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order for the York Regional Police to produce unredacted records relating to a fatal accident investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Rule 30.10 contemplates a motion within an existing action, not an originating application.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to name the police as a respondent, failed to file a mandatory factum, and failed to address the legal test for non-party production.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the appeal with costs.

In this costs endorsement, the court fixed the costs of the respondents Ivandaeva Total Image Salon Inc. and Denis Ivandaev.

Noting that their counsel provided very little assistance on the central issue of the appeal, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus GST.

The respondent Elena Ivandaeva did not participate and was not awarded costs.

The appellants, defendants in commercial litigation, sought to set aside a sealing order made in a separate matrimonial proceeding involving the plaintiff.

The appellants' counsel had accessed the matrimonial file, which had not been physically sealed due to an administrative error, and copied documents to use in the commercial litigation.

The motion judge ordered the appellants to comply with the sealing order and dismissed their cross-motion to set it aside.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not 'persons affected' by the sealing order within the meaning of Rule 37.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as their proprietary or economic interests were not directly affected, and therefore they lacked standing to challenge it.