W. C. McDowell

The applicants sought an ex parte order akin to an Anton Piller order requiring former employees to deliver up personal health information belonging to patients of a medical clinic.

Evidence showed the former employee retained urine drug screen records obtained during employment and attempted to use them to pressure the clinic owner to reinstate her employment.

The court found the applicants established a strong prima facie case, serious potential harm through misuse of personal health information, and clear evidence the respondents possessed the information contrary to the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

Although the facts did not meet the traditional fourth element of an Anton Piller order regarding risk of destruction, the court granted mandatory injunctive relief under the RJR‑MacDonald test requiring the information to be delivered to an independent supervising solicitor.

The applicants appealed an arbitration award concerning a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 and alleged negligent misrepresentation in financial forecasts relating to a Canadian Tire store development.

They argued the arbitrator applied an incorrect legal test for negligent misrepresentation and erred in assessing reliance, causation, and damages.

The court held that the scope of review was limited to errors of law and concluded the arbitrator had effectively applied the correct test from Queen v. Cognos Inc. The arbitrator’s findings that the forecasts were not negligently prepared and that the applicants did not rely on them were factual determinations not subject to appeal.

The court also upheld the arbitrator’s approach to damages and the interpretation of the release provisions in the dealer contract.