Robert Burns

The applicants brought a motion for production of documents from unnamed financial institutions and health care providers, as well as from the deceased's solicitor, in the context of an estate dispute.

The respondent consented to the orders.

The court granted the order for production from the named solicitor but refused to order production from unnamed non-parties, finding it to be an improper fishing expedition and noting that Rule 30.10 does not apply to applications.

The court also refused to freeze the respondent's joint accounts without evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking relief from the deemed undertaking rule to use discovery evidence obtained in the civil proceeding to support a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Pharmacists.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit referring to prior complaints under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the public interest in pursuing a professional complaint did not outweigh the prejudice to the defendants, as the plaintiff was seeking to use the civil process to obtain evidence for a separate proceeding.

The cross-motion was also dismissed as the court did not need to rely on the impugned evidence.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The respondents had commenced an action claiming specific performance of an agreement to purchase shares and damages for misrepresentation, alleging they had invested $283,500 to purchase shares that were never delivered.

The appellants made a written settlement offer on September 9, 2016 for $428,537.

The respondents countered on October 5, 2016 with an offer for $900,000.

On November 23, 2016, the appellants' solicitor wrote indicating the shares had been registered in the respondents' names.

On December 22, 2016, the respondents accepted the September 9, 2016 offer.

The motion judge found a settlement had been reached and enforced it.

The appellants appealed, arguing enforcement would result in double recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to lead evidence establishing double recovery.