Patrick Howard Floyd

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations.

The plaintiff did not dispute the right to the examinations but sought to impose several restrictive conditions via a court order, including prohibitions on audio/video recording, questionnaires, and opinions on liability or credibility.

The court declined to impose a standard form order with the plaintiff's proposed terms, noting that many terms were either undisputed or overly broad.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the examinations, provided they could be arranged promptly, with reports complying with Rule 53.03(2.1).

The accused, a lawful gun owner and security company operator, was charged with two counts: careless transportation of a firearm on June 21, 2012 (Count 2) and careless storage of a firearm on June 27, 2012 (Count 3).

On Count 2, police observed a shotgun mounted visibly in the accused's unattended vehicle for over an hour, contrary to transportation regulations.

On Count 3, police found a shotgun stored in an unlocked bedroom with ammunition readily accessible in a side saddle attached to the gun and additional ammunition on a dresser.

The trial court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defence arguments regarding admissibility of photographs, reliability of officer testimony, proof that the item was a firearm, and proof that the vehicle was unattended.

The court also rejected the defence submission that a trigger lock alone satisfied storage requirements when ammunition remained readily accessible.

The appellant, Jetport Inc., appealed a Master's order regarding discovery refusals in three related actions arising from an aviation insurance coverage dispute.

The court allowed the appeal in part, ordering the respondent insurer to answer questions about its course of conduct with other insureds regarding policy exemptions, finding them relevant to the pleadings.

The court also relieved the appellant from answering a question about claims against other third parties, as it was not relevant to mitigation.

However, the court upheld the Master's order requiring the appellant to answer questions about whether its employee sought legal advice from in-house counsel regarding a pilot clause, finding that disclosing the fact of such discussions did not breach solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed a case management master's order compelling answers to various discovery questions in litigation arising from the crash of a Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft and a subsequent insurance coverage dispute.

The appellant argued the questions were irrelevant because the case turned solely on contractual interpretation of a pilot training clause and also asserted statutory privilege over information related to a Transportation Safety Board investigation.

The court held that the circumstances of the accident, pilot training, and statements provided to the Transportation Safety Board were relevant to issues raised in the pleadings, including whether simulator time satisfied the contractual pilot training requirement.

The court further held the statutory privilege argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the claimed privilege.

The master's discovery orders were upheld.

Following the dismissal of appeals from a master's decision rejecting claims of litigation privilege, the court determined costs.

The responding parties sought partial indemnity costs reflecting significant legal work and extensive materials filed on the appeal.

The court applied the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable and should reflect the parties’ reasonable expectations.

The court rejected arguments that the large volume of materials filed by the appellant should influence the award and noted that the appellant advanced an arguable legal position without misconduct.

The court awarded $8,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and tax to each group of respondents.

The applicant sought a bankruptcy order against the respondent, her estranged spouse, relying primarily on arrears of spousal support enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent argued the application was brought for an improper collateral purpose and that the alleged debt was subject to a bona fide dispute in ongoing family and civil proceedings concerning allegations of fraud involving family businesses and a request to set aside the separation agreement.

The court held that bankruptcy proceedings should not be used to obtain collateral litigation advantages and that the support obligations and related financial issues were actively disputed in other proceedings.

Exercising discretion under s. 43(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court concluded there was sufficient cause to dismiss the bankruptcy application.

Appeal from a Master's order compelling production of communications and answers on discovery despite a claim of litigation privilege.

The appellant argued that emails and a meeting with its insurance broker were created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation following denial of insurance coverage for an aircraft crash.

The court held that the appellant failed to establish an evidentiary basis that the dominant purpose of the communications was litigation, noting that the available evidence suggested the discussions focused on advancing the insurance claim rather than preparing for litigation.

The court further held that any common interest litigation privilege between the insured and the broker would have been dissolved once the insured commenced an action against the broker.

The Master's order compelling disclosure was upheld.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada appealed an order requiring the production of an aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) to NAV Canada in the context of civil litigation arising from an airplane crash.

The Board argued the motion judge applied the wrong legal test under s. 28(6) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly balanced the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the statutory privilege attached to the CVR.

The court upheld the production order, noting the CVR's high relevance and reliability, but reversed a minor order regarding a flight animation that was not properly before the motion judge.

The appellant, a non-settling defendant in a class action arising from an aviation accident, appealed an order approving partial settlements.

The appellant argued that the settlement's bar orders, which prohibited further discovery of the settling defendants, would prejudice its defence and prevent the trial court from properly allocating fault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bar orders did not prevent the appellant from raising its liability arguments at trial.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the benefits of the settlement to the class outweighed any remote prejudice to the appellant's procedural rights.