Mariam Moktar

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring her psychological expert to produce his handwritten notes, questionnaires, and answers from his assessment of the plaintiff.

The expert had refused to produce the raw data, claiming it was proprietary.

The Master ordered production on an undertakings and refusals motion without notice to the expert.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by ordering relief against a non-party without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principle of audi alteram partem.

The proper procedure was a motion for production from a non-party under Rule 30.10.

The court varied the order to require production only of documents the expert did not object to producing, leaving the defendants to bring a proper Rule 30.10 motion if they wished to pursue the disputed records.

The representative plaintiff in a class action sought costs following a successful second motion under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act and a subsequent consent certification.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $31,089 for the contested motion.

For the balance of the certification motion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award because the defendants did not communicate their consent in a timely fashion, fixing costs at $65,235, with one-third payable forthwith and two-thirds payable in the cause.

The plaintiff union sued former employees and officials associated with a rival union following the creation of a new local that successfully organized workers previously represented by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of employee duties of loyalty and confidentiality, and unlawful interference with contractual relations.

The court held the principal departing employee was not a fiduciary and that most information used in the organizing campaign was either public or not proven to have been misused.

However, several former employees breached basic duties of loyalty by preparing and initiating a competing organizing campaign before resigning and by failing to give reasonable notice of departure.

The court rejected claims of tortious interference against the rival union and its representatives.

Limited damages were awarded against the former employees for breach of employee duties.