Peter K. Doody

A federal Crown corporation sought to quash a production order issued under the Criminal Code requiring disclosure of customer information.

The applicant argued that section 24.3 of the Export Development Act created a legal privilege protecting customer information from disclosure during criminal investigations, though it acknowledged an exception for prosecutions.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the term "privileged" in the statute referred to confidential information rather than a legal privilege, and that the exception for "prosecuting an offence" included prospective prosecutions and investigative stages when authorized by a judicial order.

The court held that the applicant must comply with the production order.

The applicant, Senator Michael Dennis Duffy, sought an order requiring the Clerk of the Senate to produce an internal audit report prepared by Jill Anne Joseph regarding Senate expense policies and Senator Duffy's expense claims.

The Senate claimed parliamentary privilege over the document.

The court upheld the Senate's claim of privilege, finding that the internal audit report, prepared by a Senate employee and presented to a Senate subcommittee in camera, fell within recognized categories of parliamentary privilege including freedom of speech, exclusive cognizance over parliamentary proceedings, control over internal affairs, and disciplinary authority over members.

The court rejected arguments that the privilege had been waived and distinguished the case from R. v. Chaytor, which addressed expense claims themselves rather than internal audit reports.

Following dismissal of three motions for leave to appeal interlocutory decisions in ongoing civil litigation, the court addressed costs.

The responding parties sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the self‑represented defendant had engaged in vexatious litigation and judge‑shopping through numerous unmeritorious motions.

The court accepted that the volume of motions suggested abuse of process but concluded that some of the issues raised were novel and not entirely devoid of merit.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore not warranted.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded with a 15 percent reduction to reflect limited success by the defendant on certain procedural points and some duplication in the responding parties’ work.

A case management judge considered whether he had jurisdiction to award costs for a refusals motion previously heard by another judge who later recused himself before determining costs.

The court held that, having been appointed case management judge to address all outstanding issues, it had jurisdiction to fix costs for the earlier motion.

The affected participant sought partial indemnity costs after successfully defending refusals made by its representatives during examinations.

The court rejected arguments that costs should be denied due to alleged impecuniosity, duplication of counsel, or alleged misrepresentation.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction from the amount claimed.

Following an unsuccessful motion by a non-party seeking intervener status in a civil action, the court determined costs.

The moving party argued that costs should not be awarded due to his status as an impecunious student.

The court held that alleged impecuniosity generally should not affect costs determinations and emphasized that the moving party had been warned costs would be sought if the motion proceeded.

The court also found that the moving party engaged in unreasonable conduct after the motion by sending emails attacking counsel and attempting to pressure the plaintiff to withdraw her claim for costs.

Costs were ordered payable to both opposing parties.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for leave to appeal, the plaintiff and the University of Ottawa sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the defendant's motion was barred by res judicata and collateral attack, his conduct was not totally unreasonable or vexatious.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The court ordered the self-represented defendant to pay $5,500 plus HST and disbursements to the plaintiff, and $3,500 plus HST and disbursements to the University of Ottawa, noting some duplication of costs.