A.A. Sanfilippo

The plaintiff sought to extend a Mareva Order and vary a timetable following the passing of the responding defendant's counsel.

The court extended the Mareva Order on consent until the return of the motion on a full record.

The court also ordered the release of $5,000 from the preserved funds to the responding defendant on consent, but deferred the defendant's request for monthly transfers pending the filing of a proper evidentiary record.

A new timetable was established for the completion of undertakings and the delivery of factums.

Following an appeal of a Master's order extending the time to set the action down for trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that there was divided success on the appeal, as the appellants successfully challenged the Master's reasoning but the respondents successfully affirmed the ultimate outcome.

Balancing the factors under Rule 57.01, the court ordered that all parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion on the eve of trial to remove the defendant's lead counsel of record, alleging that the defence lawyer improperly used Summonses to Witness to obtain pre-trial disclosure of confidential medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the cover letters accompanying the summonses coerced witnesses into providing documents before trial to avoid attending court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonably informed member of the public, reading the summons and cover letter as a whole, would not interpret them as an attempt to obtain improper pre-trial discovery.

The plaintiff's alternative request to quash the summonses was reserved to the trial judge.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

The court held a case management conference in a land dispute action involving a failed real estate transaction and a discharged certificate of pending litigation.

The court issued procedural directions regarding the amendment of pleadings, demands for particulars, and discussions on security for costs, while setting dates for examinations for discovery and the next case management conference.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

In an insurance coverage action, the parties brought three motions regarding discovery refusals and the examination of a second discovery representative.

The judge determined that the motions were within the jurisdiction of a Master and, pursuant to the Toronto Region Consolidated Practice Direction, transferred the motions to a Master for determination.

The judge also ordered a case conference to address procedural deficiencies and ensure the orderly development of the motions for hearing.