2 total
Further document searches ordered; broader discovery relief denied as disproportionate.
The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and various discovery-related remedies in an action arising from injuries allegedly sustained when a wheelchair user drove over concealed stairs in a municipal underpass.
The plaintiffs alleged the municipality failed to conduct adequate searches and failed to produce relevant construction and email records concerning the redesign that replaced a ramp with stairs.
The court found the municipality was technically non‑compliant with documentary disclosure obligations under Rule 30 but held that the plaintiff’s motion was disproportionate and unnecessarily combative.
The court ordered targeted additional searches and an affidavit describing the results but declined to grant broader discovery relief or sanctions.
No costs were awarded and the litigation timetable was reset.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the respondent transit authority is a federal undertaking.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Ottawa (OC Transpo).
The respondent filed a request to dismiss the application, arguing that it is a federal undertaking because its transit services extend beyond the Ontario border, making it subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Tribunal found that binding appellate authority established the respondent as a federal undertaking.
As there was no evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
