Oleg M. Roslak

The defendants moved for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by their uncle, who alleged they sent and repeated a text message calling him a rapist.

The court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 to hear oral evidence on a discrete credibility issue regarding the alleged repetition of the text.

Finding no admissible evidence that the text message ever existed and preferring the defendant's evidence that he never repeated such a statement, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded $30,000 in costs.

A joint venture partner sought disclosure of detailed payroll and employment records of the other partner’s employees working on a diamond mine project in order to audit joint venture expenditures.

The respondent refused, arguing disclosure would contravene the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) without employee consent.

The court held that while the applicant had a contractual right to audit and the information sought constituted personal information under PIPEDA, disclosure without employee consent would violate the statute absent a statutory exception.

Section 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA does not create a free‑standing jurisdiction for courts to order disclosure; rather, it applies only after an independent court order requiring production exists.

Because no such jurisdictional basis had been invoked, the application was dismissed without prejudice to renewal.