S. Gadbois

In an application seeking judicial review of municipal resolutions restricting the applicant’s access to municipal meetings, property, and staff, the municipality brought a motion for leave to summons and examine its clerk as a non‑party witness after cross‑examinations on existing affidavits had been completed.

The court considered the criteria for admitting additional evidence following cross‑examinations as articulated in First Capital Realty v. Centrecorp Management Services Ltd. The municipality provided no evidence of the proposed testimony and offered no adequate explanation for failing to present the evidence earlier.

The court held that permitting the examination would effectively allow the municipality to split its case and repair deficiencies revealed during cross‑examination.

Leave to summons and examine the witness was denied.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant taxi company improperly removed a driver from its approved driver list and requesting reinstatement.

The defendant alleged the driver was cheating the dispatch system by positioning himself to obtain lucrative out‑of‑town calls based on advance knowledge.

The court found the defendant relied on complaints, rumours, and unsupported allegations and failed to produce direct evidence or conduct a proper investigation.

Applying Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability.

Summary judgment was granted, the driver was ordered reinstated, and the matter was directed to trial solely on damages.