C. Di Carlo

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2015 but took no steps for over five years while the principal of the plaintiff corporations faced criminal charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set the action down for trial, but later abandoned it and served a trial record.

The defendants brought cross-motions to proceed with the status hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they unilaterally held the action in abeyance without communicating with the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiffs failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to continue the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative for a further 4.5 days, while the defendant submitted that only one further day was appropriate.

The action involves claims of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations.

The case management judge found the motion to be a waste of the court's time and ordered a compromise of two additional days (12 hours) of discovery, noting the parties had previously consented to exceed the seven-hour limit under Rule 31.05.1.

The plaintiffs' request regarding a Request to Admit was deemed moot as the defendant had delivered a compliant response prior to the hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed by the defendant in support of her pending anti-SLAPP motion.

The underlying action involves claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office against a municipal councillor.

The court applied the test for relevance on a motion, balancing the scope of the anti-SLAPP motion with the principle of proportionality.

The court ordered the defendant to answer certain narrowed questions regarding her communications with third parties and the police, but dismissed overbroad requests and upheld solicitor-client privilege regarding a non-party lawyer's communications.