Paul K. Lepsoe

The appellants appealed a Master’s decision dismissing their motion to remove opposing counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from a prior limited solicitor‑client interaction.

The appellants also appealed the Master’s costs award.

The court held that the Master committed no palpable and overriding error in finding that any privilege in a legal invoice had been waived and that the earlier retainer was not sufficiently related to the present dispute to justify removal of counsel.

The court further held that the lawyer’s potential role as a witness was speculative and did not justify disqualification.

The appeal and the challenge to the costs award were dismissed.

Following a motion in a simplified procedure action involving a claim for corporate oppression and production of documents, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had largely succeeded on the underlying motion, including obtaining leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act and compelling answers to undertakings and production of financial records.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered complexity, proportionality, success, conduct of the parties, and the time and rates claimed.

The court held that the success on the motion justified an award of costs, but that the conduct alleged did not warrant elevated costs.

Costs were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a simplified procedure action seeking leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression claim under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, and to compel answers to undertakings and production of corporate records.

The court held that an oppression claim could be advanced within a Rule 76 simplified action and granted leave to amend the claim.

However, the court limited document production to records relevant to payments, financial statements, bank records, and financing related to the defendant corporation.

Production requests relating to an affiliated corporation were largely refused as irrelevant.

The court also ordered responses to certain discovery undertakings concerning payments to specific individuals and imposed limits on further discovery.

The applicant sought property tax exemptions under s. 3(1), para. 23 of the Assessment Act for two amusement attractions at a waterpark, along with related pump houses and structures housing operational machinery.

The court interpreted the statutory exemption for “mechanical amusement devices on which a person rides,” considering the purpose of the exemption and principles of tax statute interpretation.

It held that a mechanically generated lazy river ride and wave pool qualified as mechanical amusement devices because patrons experience mechanically produced movement on the water.

However, buildings housing the pumps and equipment were not exempt, as they constituted buildings rather than machinery or equipment, though specific concrete foundations supporting machinery were exempt.

The court ordered amendments to the assessment roll and refunds of any taxes improperly levied.