Alex Michel

In a complex construction litigation, the third and fourth parties brought a motion for satisfaction of undertakings and refusals, seeking documents prior to the execution of a settlement agreement on December 7, 2021.

They argued the settling parties reached an 'agreement in principle' earlier and failed to immediately disclose it, fundamentally altering the litigation landscape.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the requested documents were protected by settlement privilege, litigation privilege, and solicitor-client privilege, and that the obligation to disclose applies only to concluded agreements, not ongoing negotiations.

The moving party, Soil Engineering Ltd., sought costs for a motion brought the previous year to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not complain of any wrongdoing by the moving party in the statement of claim, yet the moving party had to bring multiple motions due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and a previous costs award to another defendant, the court awarded the moving party $8,500 in costs.

The moving parties, Soil Engineering, Bernard Lee, and Priestly Demolition Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff's claim primarily focused on the Town of Newmarket's alleged frustration of his efforts to obtain building permits.

The court found that the statement of claim contained no allegations of wrongdoing against the moving parties and struck the claim against them.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding it was not the clearest of cases to deny leave.

The court declined to dismiss the entire action as frivolous or vexatious, noting that some claims against the Town might have a reasonable possibility of success.

The plaintiff brought a motion for detailed particulars of the defendants' statement of defence, arguing they were necessary to file a reply.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligence and breach of contract regarding a severance application and home design.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested particulars were evidentiary in nature and should be elicited during examinations for discovery, rather than being necessary for the plaintiff to understand the issues or plead appropriately.