Associate Judge Barbara McAfee

The plaintiff brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking unredacted copies of the corporate defendant's 2015 and 2016 financial statements.

The defendants claimed the redacted portions were protected by litigation privilege and common interest privilege, arguing they were notes to shareholders describing the ongoing litigation.

The Master reviewed the documents under Rule 30.06(d) and found the defendants failed to establish the evidentiary foundation that the redacted portions were created for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The defendants were ordered to produce the unredacted financial statements and pay costs of $3,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve the statement of claim on two defendants in a personal injury action arising from a scooter accident.

The plaintiff had mistakenly believed the defendants were properly served within the six-month period.

The court found the delay was adequately explained and that the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice caused by the delay.

The motion to extend the time for service was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in an action for lost profits arising from the defendant's refusal to allow the plaintiff to bid on or be awarded two electrical contracting projects.

The defendant opposed certain amendments, arguing they asserted a new cause of action after the expiry of a limitation period.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments merely provided additional facts and particulars arising out of the same factual matrix originally pleaded, and did not assert a new cause of action.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents for inspection and to provide particulars of its statement of claim regarding an equipment lease for a helicopter.

The Master partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to produce written demands for payment if they exist, and to provide particulars of the date and price of the helicopter's sale to allow the defendant to plead a defence of set-off.

The balance of the requests were dismissed as they sought non-specific documents or evidence rather than material facts necessary for pleading.

The defendant brought a motion for an extension of time to deliver a jury notice after the close of pleadings in an action arising from a denial of travel insurance coverage.

The failure to deliver the notice was due to the inadvertence of the defendant's original counsel.

The court granted the motion, finding that the delay was not unconscionable and that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice, as discoveries are fact-finding and no trial preparation had yet taken place.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from the plaintiff's examination for discovery, and for re-attendance.

The parties resolved many issues by consent.

The primary contested issue was whether the defendants were required to pay the cost of obtaining records before they were produced.

The Master held that, absent an agreement, the defendants were not required to bear the cost of production at this stage, leaving the issue to the trial judge's discretion.

The Master also ordered the plaintiff to re-attend discovery if necessary, with parties bearing their own costs in the normal course.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants in the cause.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for costs after the responding parties (plaintiffs) discontinued their action.

The responding parties had commenced the action after being informed by the moving parties' agent that the moving parties intended to breach an agreement to return properties following a condominium development.

The responding parties discontinued the action once the moving parties finally provided written confirmation that they would comply with their contractual obligations.

The court dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the responding parties had a bona fide cause of action and were justified in commencing the claim.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to compel further discovery and production of documents from the defendants, specifically seeking unredacted daytimers and a fourth re-attendance for discovery.

The court granted leave to bring the motion but dismissed the substantive requests, noting the long-standing knowledge of the daytimers, the imminent 20-day trial, and the unreasonableness of ordering a further re-attendance at this late stage.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding defendants.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff, a corporation registered in the Netherlands, sued the defendant for breach of a consulting agreement.

The plaintiff argued that it was forced to litigate in Ontario due to a choice of forum clause and that the motion was delayed.

The court found that the choice of forum clause did not militate against an order for security for costs and that the merits of the claim were neutral.

Although the motion was brought late, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs limited to prospective costs, fixed at $20,000 payable in tranches.

The plaintiffs (defendants to the counterclaim) brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(d) for an order requiring the corporate defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim) to post security for costs in the amount of $80,000.

The court found that while the corporate defendant was impecunious, it would be unjust to order security for costs because the counterclaim was closely related to the main action, the impecuniosity may have been caused by the moving parties' conduct, and the co-defendants undertook to pay any costs awarded against the corporate defendant.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add a claim for punitive damages against a defendant who rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle while impaired.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing she had already paid her debt to society through a criminal conviction and fine.

The court granted the motion, noting that a prior criminal penalty is a factor to consider but not an absolute bar to punitive damages, and found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis following a motion for answers to refusals given on an examination for discovery.

The defendant sought costs of $6,150.27.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to costs given their success on three of the four categories of refusals pursued, and because costs were unnecessarily incurred due to the defendant's late advice regarding a lost underwriting file.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a four-day reference in an insurance application, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued costs should be reserved to the judge hearing the confirmation of the report.

The Master held that having presided over the reference, they were in the best position to fix costs.

The Master rejected the request for full indemnity costs, finding no conduct warranting such an award, and fixed partial indemnity costs at $28,000 payable to the respondent, subject to confirmation of the report.

The moving party defendant brought a motion to compel the responding party plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery, and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer most of the contested questions, finding them relevant to the pleadings, but declined to order production of communications between counsel and experts or the experts' files, citing a lack of factual foundation for improper influence.

The plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery, and the moving party was awarded costs in the cause.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a 2002 dismissal order for non-appearance and to reinstate the action.

Several defendants requested an adjournment to retrieve their files, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, noting that the plaintiff failed to serve all relevant defendants, did not include the dismissal order in the motion materials, and provided little evidence explaining the delay since a vexatious litigant order against him was rescinded in 2010.

The plaintiff brought a motion for various procedural relief, including leave to bring the motion after setting the action down for trial, further examinations for discovery, and further documentary production.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1) due to substantial amendments to the pleadings.

The court ordered further examinations of certain defendants and non-parties, and ordered the defendants to serve further and better supplementary affidavits of documents.

Timetables were set for expert reports and further motions.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiff in the cause, while costs of a prior motion were awarded to the defendants in the cause.

The plaintiff, a shell corporation, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a gas station it had agreed to purchase.

The transaction failed to close on the extended closing date, and the vendor subsequently sold the property to a third party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue that the agreement of purchase and sale remained in effect.

Furthermore, the court held that the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and the plaintiff's status as a shell corporation raised concerns about its ability to pay damages if unsuccessful at trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of secret commissions and intentional interference with economic relations, and to disqualify the defendants' counsel from acting for a proposed new defendant.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for case management and a timetable.

The court denied the contested amendments without prejudice, finding the plaintiff failed to plead full particulars as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court also dismissed the motion to disqualify counsel, finding no clear evidence of a conflict of interest.

Case management was denied, but a timetable was ordered.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the defendants.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to settle a previous order, fix a timetable, and order reciprocal property inspections.

The court found that the reciprocal inspections had already been consented to in a prior order and through undertakings, and ordered them to proceed.

The court also addressed the costs of a previous motion, finding divided success and ordering that each party bear their own costs.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions refused during an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff claimed $700,000 in pecuniary damages.

The Master found that the plaintiff had not made best efforts to answer several undertakings, including providing OHIP summaries and motel receipts.

The Master also ordered the plaintiff to answer the refusals, finding them relevant to the economic loss claim and not offending the principle of proportionality.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.