William Edward Charles Parker

The plaintiff, Oz Optics, alleged that former employees Jing Ru Zhang and Nai-Guang Wang, along with their daughter Chen Wang, appropriated confidential information upon their resignation and sold it.

Both the plaintiff and defendants brought motions for further and better affidavits of documents.

The court ordered the defendants to produce records relating to cash receipts for 2010-2015 and Chen Wang to provide an affidavit of documents with similar records.

The court also ordered Oz Optics to produce annual and monthly sales figures and financial statements for 2010-2015, while denying many of the defendants' broader document requests based on proportionality.

This endorsement from a Trial Management Conference outlines the procedural orders made to schedule the trial and subsequent pre-trial steps.

The trial is scheduled for October 16, 2017, for six to eight weeks.

Orders include deadlines for circulating a draft Statement of Defence, cross-examination of a witness, a further mediation, and the delivery of expert reports on solicitor negligence and damages by both the plaintiff and defendants.

A further Trial Management Conference is adjourned to April 10, 2017, to review the status.

Following a motion for temporary child and spousal support, the court addressed the outstanding issue of costs.

The moving party had been successful on the earlier motion, which determined the responding party’s income and ordered support accordingly.

The court found that settlement had been hindered by the responding party’s lack of disclosure.

While the successful party sought over $51,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis, the court concluded that full indemnity was not justified and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The moving defendant sought to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction obtained without notice, alleging inadequate evidence, hearsay, and failure by the plaintiffs to make full and frank disclosure.

The court examined alleged deficiencies including the presentation of SMS message data, inaccuracies in affidavit evidence, and hearsay regarding customer orders.

While the court acknowledged certain imperfections and minor inaccuracies in the evidence, it concluded that the original motion judge had sufficient admissible evidence to justify the injunction.

The court held that minor imperfections or omissions in ex parte proceedings do not automatically invalidate relief where the overall evidentiary foundation remains adequate.

The Mareva order was therefore maintained, subject to a minor agreed amendment.