Ben Grant

This case conference endorsement addressed the assignment of the proceeding to active case management under Rule 77 and issues concerning examinations for discovery and costs.

The defendants sought to conduct examinations for discovery by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the plaintiff's age and health.

The plaintiff preferred written interrogatories or delayed in-person examinations.

Citing *Arconti v. Smith*, the court ordered that examinations for discovery proceed by videoconference, finding that the benefits of proceeding outweighed the plaintiff's concerns and that further delay was unreasonable.

The court also ordered submissions on costs thrown away from previously cancelled discoveries.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to define the scope of a statutory stay arising from an appeal by Skotidakis Goat Farm against a DFO decision imposing retroactive assessments and other penalties.

The Tribunal held that the statutory stay did not suspend DFO's regulatory authority to conduct ongoing inspections and audits outside the scope of the appealed decision.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal also ordered the Appellants to preserve original production records and post financial security of approximately $3.3 million (representing two months of average milk purchases) pending the final disposition of the appeal.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to stay a defamation action pending the completion of a related Federal Court action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff had not justified a substantial indemnity award, as the defendants simply lost a motion they were entitled to bring.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that costs should be in the cause, noting that the unsuccessful motion caused unnecessary expense.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $21,500.

The defendants moved for a temporary stay of a defamation action in the Superior Court of Justice until the completion of a parallel copyright infringement and statutory claims action in the Federal Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the heavy onus of showing that continuing the Ontario action would cause them prejudice or injustice, or that a stay would not prejudice the plaintiff.

The court noted that the defamation action involved different substantive elements and remedies not available in the Federal Court.