T. Corbett

This ruling addresses the admissibility of opinion evidence from a former employee as a "participant expert" under *Westerhof v. Gee Estate*.

The court confirmed the witness's qualification and impartiality, allowing the evidence.

However, it imposed strict limitations, requiring the opinion evidence to be directly connected to the witness's observations and participation in the events at issue during their employment, and not to broader, temporally disconnected studies or activities.

In a commercial dispute concerning banking facilities and losses allegedly arising from the termination of credit supporting commodity hedging, the defendant bank brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed electronic discovery plan and compelling compliance with Phase 2 documentary production.

The plaintiffs opposed the plan and argued that a prior court order already constituted the governing discovery plan.

The court held that the earlier timetable order did not satisfy the requirements of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it lacked the necessary scope, production, and procedural details.

Applying the Sedona Canada Principles and principles of relevance and proportionality, the court determined the appropriate scope of Phase 2 electronic discovery and approved the bank’s proposed discovery plan with limited amendments.

The plaintiffs’ motion seeking related relief was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, owners of a long-standing apple farm and retail market, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from constructing berms on lands adjacent to a nearby landfill.

They argued the berms would eliminate buffer lands, violate environmental approvals, and cause nuisance by creating stigma that would harm their retail business.

The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, primarily in nuisance, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm.

Evidence showed the market had achieved record sales after initial berm construction and any potential losses could be compensated by damages.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendants due to delay in bringing the motion and the impact an injunction would have on the defendants’ construction plans.