Mr. Sullivan

On a pre-injunction motion, the respondent to the application sought to strike portions of two affidavits filed in support of a Charter challenge to federal election legislation.

The court reviewed the opinion evidence rule and emphasized caution in excising affidavit evidence where the injunction judge, with the full record, was better positioned to assess admissibility and relevance.

The court declined to strike the affidavit evidence of one deponent and most of the other deponent’s affidavit, despite concerns that some passages resembled expert opinion or were of doubtful relevance.

One paragraph criticizing the legislative process was struck as clearly irrelevant.

In this costs-only decision following abandonment of a trial, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs after the plaintiff advised shortly before trial that no evidence would be called.

The action concerned a non-earner benefit claim and claims for aggravated, punitive, and mental distress damages, with pleadings alleging unlawful claims practices, conspiracy, and bad faith.

The court held those allegations were akin to unproven fraud allegations, were unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, and constituted conduct worthy of sanction.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the defendant in the amount of $35,692.97, payable forthwith.