Porter William Beeson Heffernan

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their wrongful dismissal action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellants were dismissed for cause in November 2009 and commenced their action in July 2015, approximately six years later.

The appellants argued that they did not know whether a civil proceeding was an appropriate means to seek remedy until related criminal proceedings were resolved.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that "appropriate" under section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act means legally appropriate, not whether the proceeding will succeed.

The court distinguished Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board) on the basis that the civil and criminal matters were not mirror images of each other in this case.

The defendant MacEwen Petroleum Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claim as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period should run from the date of their criminal acquittals, not the date of termination, citing exceptions for claims against state agents.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was discoverable on the date of termination (November 9, 2009) and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for tolling the limitation period, which are typically reserved for cases involving police misconduct where civil and criminal claims are "mirror images." The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, Oz Optics, alleged that former employees Jing Ru Zhang and Nai-Guang Wang, along with their daughter Chen Wang, appropriated confidential information upon their resignation and sold it.

Both the plaintiff and defendants brought motions for further and better affidavits of documents.

The court ordered the defendants to produce records relating to cash receipts for 2010-2015 and Chen Wang to provide an affidavit of documents with similar records.

The court also ordered Oz Optics to produce annual and monthly sales figures and financial statements for 2010-2015, while denying many of the defendants' broader document requests based on proportionality.

The defendant sought costs following a motion that combined a motion to strike the statement of claim and a motion for summary judgment.

The court had previously indicated the original pleading disclosed no viable cause of action and permitted the plaintiff to file a fresh amended statement of claim with costs thrown away.

The defendant claimed over $115,000 in costs, arguing the amended pleading introduced entirely new causes of action and rendered extensive preparation for the summary judgment motion wasted.

The court held that the costs relating to the summary judgment motion should be treated as costs in the cause because it was unclear whether the motion would ultimately have succeeded or whether it had been premature under the principles articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.

Costs for the successful motion to strike were fixed and ordered payable immediately, while the balance relating to summary judgment was deferred pending the outcome of the action.