P. Cassan

The defendant corporation brought a disclosure application seeking either a stay of proceedings or a disclosure order, alleging the prosecution failed to disclose relevant information regarding a guarding project conducted at the defendant's facility between 2007 and 2009.

The defendant was charged with failing to ensure prescribed measures and procedures were carried out in the workplace, contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, specifically regarding failure to guard a machine.

The application was heard on the first day of trial.

The court denied the application, finding that the requested information was not in the possession of the prosecution, was not part of the fruits of the investigation, and was not obviously relevant to the defendant's case given the significant time lapse and modifications made to the equipment between 2007-2009 and the alleged 2016 offence date.

The self-represented applicants filed a notice of application containing allegations of impropriety against the respondent municipality's lawyers and CAO.

The applicants subsequently abandoned the application.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court held that the unproven and unfounded allegations of impropriety warranted an elevated costs award.

The court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondent at $17,696.47.

The respondent son brought a motion to disqualify the applicant's solicitor due to a conflict of interest.

The solicitor had previously acted for the respondent mother in the transfer of her property, but was now representing the applicant in an application to declare the mother incapable of managing property.

The court found that the solicitor was in a conflict of interest because he was attacking the legal work done during the first retainer and could potentially be called as a witness regarding the mother's capacity.

The motion was granted and the solicitor was removed as counsel.