Richard R. Housen

In the midst of a family law trial, the respondent husband objected to the applicant wife's attempt to cross-examine him on police occurrence reports and title documents that had not been previously disclosed.

The court found that the wife's late production of these documents amounted to trial by ambush and created unfairness for the husband, violating the fundamental principle of early and complete disclosure in family law.

To remedy the unfairness, the court halted the cross-examination on the new documents and ordered a revised trial schedule, requiring the wife to testify first to establish the admissibility of the documents and allowing the husband an opportunity to review them and be properly examined.

The applicant, a beneficiary of a trust, brought a motion to compel the respondent trustee to produce 65 documents over which the trustee claimed solicitor-client and/or litigation privilege.

The court found that a trustee generally cannot claim solicitor-client privilege against a beneficiary for documents related to trust administration, unless the parties are in an adversarial relationship on a separate and distinct matter.

Litigation privilege was not established as the dominant purpose for creating the documents was not litigation.

The court ordered the production of most documents, with redactions for content unrelated to trust administration where an adversarial relationship existed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law proceeding for persistent failure to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that financial disclosure is the most basic obligation in family law and is automatic.

The Court held that the appellant's conduct in ignoring three court orders put him in the exceptional category of cases where the motion judge's discretion to strike pleadings was reasonably exercised.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for vacation and termination pay owed to a former employee.

The Ministry of Labour argued the application was untimely, having been filed more than 45 days after the Order was issued.

The Board found that the Order was delivered to the applicant's address and signed for, and that the applicant also received a follow-up letter but failed to act promptly.

The Board declined to extend the time for filing, noting the significant delay and lack of extenuating circumstances.

The application was dismissed as untimely and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay.

At the hearing, it was revealed that the responding employer had filed an assignment in bankruptcy, but the appointed trustee had not been given notice of the proceeding.

The applicant requested to proceed, while the Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment.

The Board determined that notice must be given to the trustee and adjourned the hearing.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to a former employee, a certified technician.

The employer argued it was exempt from paying under the Employment Standards Act because the employee was guilty of wilful misconduct, citing several incidents of poor and unsafe work.

The Board found that while the employee's performance was unsatisfactory and justified termination, his mistakes were not intentional or deliberate.

Therefore, the conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct, and the Order to Pay was affirmed.