A. Ottaway

Three actions were brought arising out of a water loss incident.

The defendant sought a timetable for the conduct of the actions due to the complexity of scheduling examinations for discovery with multiple parties.

The court directed the defendant to provide information regarding the ownership and maintenance of the water heater to determine if Enercare or Reliance Home Comfort are proper parties.

The case conference was adjourned to establish the timetable and determine the status of the actions against the water heater companies.

The court also indicated a willingness to order the three actions to be tried together upon consent of the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike portions of the defendant's defence and the entirety of the counterclaim.

The parties resolved the motion by consent, leaving only the issue of costs.

The defendant argued that a consent order should not attract costs and that the motion was unnecessary.

The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff incurred costs to analyze the poorly constructed pleadings and identify what should be struck, work that the defendant's counsel should have done.

However, the court found the plaintiff's claimed costs of nearly $9,000 to be excessive.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit regarding their alleged impecuniosity, which was served six months after the deadline set by a court-ordered timetable.

The court denied leave, finding that plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide a reasonable, good faith explanation for the delay and had ignored the court's explicit direction to research the evidentiary requirements for impecuniosity before drafting the initial materials.