Michael James Patrick Darcy

The appellants, general partners in three limited partnerships, appealed an application judge's order requiring them to produce information to the respondent limited partners and to include specific material in annual and semi-annual reports.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and that the order exceeded the limited partnership agreements (LPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the appellants had ample notice, and that the order was consistent with the broad information rights of limited partners under section 10 of the Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

L.16, and did not prejudice the appellants.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that found their professional negligence action was not statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent neither knew nor ought to have known that its loss was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The moving parties sought to quash an appeal of an application judge's order that had granted their application under the Limited Partnerships Act to compel the responding parties to provide financial information.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge's order was final, as it brought the application to an end and finally determined the moving parties' entitlement to financial information.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.

The Requestor, an Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) claimant, sought directions regarding Canada's alleged non-compliance with a prior disclosure order concerning documents related to St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

Specifically, the Requestor alleged Canada failed to produce examination for discovery transcripts from civil proceedings.

The court directed the parties to provide written submissions to determine whether Canada had complied with the January 14, 2014 order, finding that no further affidavit evidence was required at this stage given the narrow factual dispute.