CITATION: Bilich v. Buck, Wireless Mining Technologies Ltd., 2014 ONSC 1890
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 560/13
DATE: 20140324
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
ROBERT BILICH
Plaintiff
– and –
MALCOLM K. BUCK, WIRELESS MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD. and WMT INTERNTIONAL LIMITED
Defendants
In Person
Evan L. Tingley, for the Defendants
HEARD at Toronto: March 24, 2014
ASTON J. (orally)
[1] Though it is not apparent from the motion material filed, the plaintiff’s principle submission today is that Whitaker J. erred in failing to strike out two affidavits of Mr. Buck from 2012, or alternatively in failing to afford Mr. Bilich an opportunity to cross-examine on those affidavits.
[2] Mr. Bilich asserts that he made diligent efforts to conduct such cross-examination and in part relied on the avoidance of any cross-examination as part of his contempt motion. However, I observe that these affidavits were sworn more than a year before the motion heard by Whitaker J.
[3] Mr. Bilich had ample opportunity to bring a separate motion to the Master to either strike them out or to get a specific court order for a time and place for cross-examination long before December 5, 2013. The refusal of Whitaker J. to strike the affidavits on oral submissions heard December 5, 2013 is not a discrete reason to subject Whitaker J.’s decision to appellate review.
[4] The motions judge correctly articulated and applied the test for civil contempt to the facts as he found them. There is no conflicting decision in the jurisprudence and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order in question. Moreover, the proposed appeal does not transcend the interests of the parties or rise to the level of a matter of public importance. The test for leave to appeal simply is not met.
[5] On the question of costs, the motions judge exercised a broad discretion. There is no demonstrated error of law or error in principle that would justify leave to appeal the costs.
[6] The motion is therefore dismissed.
COSTS
[7] I have endorsed the back of the Motion Record, “For oral reasons given and recorded, this motion is dismissed. Mr. Bilich is to pay costs of the motion fixed at $3,500 all inclusive.”
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 24, 2014
Date of Release: March 26, 2014
CITATION: Bilich v. Buck, Wireless Mining Technologies Ltd., 2014 ONSC 1890
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 560/13
DATE: 20140324
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON J.
BETWEEN:
ROBERT BILICH
Plaintiff
– and –
MALCOLM K. BUCK, WIRELESS MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD. and WMT INTERNTIONAL LIMITED
Defendants
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 24, 2014
Date of Release: March 26, 2014