In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant moved to strike the case from the January 2027 trial list based on the plaintiff's alleged non-compliance with document production obligations relating to mitigation.
The court found the self-represented plaintiff had incompletely complied and had misunderstood the scope of the prior production order, but rejected the defendant's characterization of the record as showing no meaningful compliance.
The motion to strike was dismissed as overzealous and disproportionate at that stage.
The court instead granted the plaintiff one final opportunity to provide specified personal banking, corporate, share purchase, lease, and job-search records, required that the productions be sworn, and permitted a further six-hour examination.
Costs were reserved to the trial judge.
