A. Boudreau

Following a motion where the defendants were largely unsuccessful in seeking further particulars and striking paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, the plaintiff sought costs of $11,923.04.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and the defendants' motion was largely unnecessary.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $8,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants in a franchise dispute brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to provide further particulars and to strike numerous paragraphs of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a former franchisee of a dog daycare business, alleged that the defendants conspired to manufacture grounds to terminate the franchise agreement and take over the location.

The Master dismissed the majority of the defendants' demands for particulars, finding they improperly sought evidence rather than material facts required for pleading.

The Master also declined to strike most of the challenged paragraphs, though a few specific paragraphs and inflammatory words were struck with leave to amend.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act.

It argued that the certification judge erred in finding the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and in determining that common issues existed, particularly regarding an alleged duty of a custodial trustee to warn investors about an investment scheme.

The court held that the certification judge properly applied the test under the Class Proceedings Act and that it was not plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success.

The alleged “super-added duty” was properly characterized as part of the broader tort duty of care that could arise depending on factual findings at trial.

The court also rejected arguments that the certification process or authorities relied upon created conflicting jurisprudence warranting appellate review.

In a commercial dispute concerning a promissory note and alleged oppression by corporate directors and officers, the court addressed the structuring of an upcoming commercial trial.

The plaintiff alleged that a term of the promissory note required the company to apply proceeds from certain related companies to repay the note and that the company failed to comply.

The defendants denied liability and the corporate defendant advanced a counterclaim alleging breach of a separation agreement and diversion of business opportunities.

At a case conference, the parties proposed a hybrid trial procedure combining affidavit evidence with viva voce testimony.

The court approved a structured plan governing settlement discussions, service of affidavit evidence, expert reports, joint expert meetings, electronic document delivery, and time-limited oral openings, emphasizing the flexibility of modern civil trial procedures.