S. Gaudet

In a long-running class action regarding defective temporomandibular joint implants, the parties brought ten procedural motions primarily concerning document production and pre-trial examinations.

The plaintiff sought further searches for key historical documents, alleging spoliation by the defendant, while the defendant sought forensic examination of documents produced by the plaintiff's key witness, alleging fabrication.

Balancing the need for discovery against proportionality and an impending peremptory trial date, the Master ordered targeted physical and electronic searches by the defendant, forensic inspection of disputed documents, and specific pre-trial examinations of key witnesses.

The plaintiff, an RCMP officer, brought a civil action against the RCMP and his superior officers for harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and other torts.

The claims arose after the plaintiff participated in a political nomination meeting, which led his superiors to punitively transfer him out of national security work, initiate an unfounded internal investigation into his credit card use, and stand him down during a national security emergency.

The Superior Court of Justice recognized the tort of harassment in Ontario and found that the defendants' conduct was outrageous, flagrant, and caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in general damages and $41,000 in special damages for lost income due to delayed promotional opportunities.

The plaintiff brought a motion to re-open his case during an ongoing civil trial to introduce evidence of a workplace incident that occurred after the plaintiff had closed his case.

The incident involved a training-session comment that was incorrectly processed within the organization as a harassment complaint and entered into a harassment database.

The court considered the applicable test for reopening a case before the trial had concluded and held that the relevant inquiry was whether the proposed evidence was relevant and material.

The court found the evidence could be material to the plaintiff’s damages claim and that admitting it would not cause unfairness because the defendants had not yet closed their case and could respond.

The motion was granted and the testimony from the motion witnesses was permitted to be read into the plaintiff’s case.

During an ongoing trial, the plaintiff brought a motion to re-open his case to introduce new evidence regarding a recent event.

The plaintiff alleged that a mischaracterized harassment complaint was filed against him and improperly handled by senior management, which was relevant to his damages claim for workplace harassment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the new evidence was relevant and material to the plaintiff's damages, and that admitting it would not cause trial unfairness to the defendants.