Phillip G. Hunt

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving parties sought to stay or dismiss a negligence and breach of contract action for want of court jurisdiction.

The court applied the essential character framework and considered whether the dispute arose from collective agreement administration or from alleged promises and representations made outside that framework.

The court held that the pleaded claim, including alleged negligent misrepresentation and reliance relating to disability litigation steps and a missed limitation period, was arguable as a civil negligence claim not confined to labour board exclusivity.

The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused, and directions were set for further submissions.

The court determined costs following a motion involving multiple forms of relief, including leave to amend the statement of claim, settlement of a master's order, contempt, a case management timetable, and refusals and undertakings.

The moving party was largely unsuccessful on several issues, including a contempt motion that the court found premature and without merit.

The court held that contempt is a serious allegation and failure on such a claim may justify substantial indemnity costs.

Although there was divided success on some discovery-related issues, the defendants were overall the successful parties.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendants.