Adam Wilson

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to outstanding discovery undertakings and refusals, and for a third examination of the defendant's representative.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for non-compliance with undertakings or, alternatively, to compel answers to their outstanding refusals.

Most undertakings were resolved by consent, and the jury notice was struck by agreement.

The court ruled on the remaining discovery refusals for both parties, ordering the defendant to provide an employee's employment file and information from a former employee regarding inspections, and ordering the plaintiff to provide information on other personal injury lawsuits and colour photos of footwear.

The plaintiff's request for a third examination was dismissed, with the court emphasizing proportionality in simplified procedure actions.

No costs were awarded to either party due to the mixed success and the nature of simplified procedure.

The plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion to strike out paragraphs of the defendants' Amended Statement of Defence that contained blanket denials.

The plaintiff argued that under Rules 25.06(1) and 25.07(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants were required to plead their own version of material facts for every allegation denied.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a defendant is not required to plead a different version of facts for every denied allegation, and that the defendants' pleading, read as a whole, sufficiently defined the issues in dispute.