Purchase This Domain

Civil procedure — Appeal materials — Inclusion of transcript — Appellant sought to include a transcript of oral arguments from the lower court in the appeal materials — Whether the reviewing panel should interfere with the discretionary order of Roberts J.A. denying the request — Deferential standard of review applied to discretionary orders — No error in principle or unreasonable result found — Motion dismissedEvidence — Relevance of transcript — Appellant sought to include a transcript of oral arguments from the lower court in the appeal materials — Whether the transcript was necessary or relevant for the fair hearing of the appeal — Submissions made before the summary judgment judge were not evidence — Transcript deemed unnecessary for adjudication of the appeal — Motion dismissedLabour and employment — Tort of discrimination — Appellant’s claim alleged a tort of discrimination arising from employment-related interviews — Summary judgment motion dismissed the claim, finding no recognized tort of discrimination in Ontario — Whether the motion judge erred in dismissing the claim on this basis — No error foundTorts — Limitation periods — Incapacity — Appellant argued that the limitation period for his claim was tolled due to incapacity — Motion judge found the appellant was capable of suing and defending suits during the relevant period — Whether the motion judge erred in finding the limitation period had expired — No error found

Intellectual property — Breach of confidence — Fiduciary duties — Software development — Use of confidential information — Did the appellants use the respondent’s proprietary source code to develop competing software? — Trial judge found breach of confidence and fiduciary duties — Damages awarded based on disgorgement of profits — Framework for assessing misuse of confidential information in software development disputesEvidence — Adverse inference — Credibility — Discovery obligations — Did the trial judge err in drawing an adverse inference regarding the appellants’ failure to produce complete source code in Visual Basic? — Adverse inference upheld based on incomplete disclosure and testimony — Deference to trial judge’s credibility assessment — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194Civil procedure — Limitations Act defence — Statute-barred claims — Amendments to pleadings — Did the trial judge err in failing to address the Limitations Act defence to the TCS Opportunities claim? — TCS Opportunities claim found to be a new cause of action — Claim added outside the two-year limitation period — Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. BTorts — Damages — Disgorgement of profits — Adjustment of damages — What is the appropriate remedy for the TCS Opportunities claim being statute-barred? — Damages reduced to exclude profits attributable to the TCS Opportunities claim — Pre-judgment interest adjusted accordingly — Framework for calculating damages in cases involving multiple claims

Insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) — Priority disputes — Pre-arbitration expenses — Does Regulation 283 limit the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in disputes over pre-arbitration expenses? — Regulation 283 interpreted as reflecting a deliberate policy choice to limit expense reimbursements to deflection cases under s. 2.1(7)Insurance — Arbitration — Expense reimbursement — Can arbitrators order reimbursement of pre-arbitration expenses in priority disputes when there is no improper deflection? — Arbitrators cannot routinely invoke equitable principles to order reimbursement outside the express provisions of Regulation 283Insurance — Policy interpretation — Legislative intent — Should insurers bear their own pre-arbitration expenses except in cases of deflection? — Regulation 283 interpreted to prioritize cost reduction and clarity in arbitration, requiring insurers to bear their own expenses unless s. 2.1(7) appliesObligations — Arbitration Act, 1991 — Equity — Does the Arbitration Act, 1991 permit arbitrators to make expense reimbursement orders outside the scope of Regulation 283? — Arbitration Act does not override the specific regulatory framework of Regulation 283, which limits reimbursement orders to deflection cases