Charles M. Loopstra

The moving party brought a motion to strike a solicitor's affidavit filed in support of an estates motion.

The moving party argued the affidavit was an improper use of a solicitor's affidavit, contained scandalous and vexatious material, and breached settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit was properly used to provide non-contentious background facts, did not contain scandalous material, and that any potential settlement privilege issues were too intertwined with non-privileged material to be struck at this stage.

The defendants brought a motion under r. 24.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a libel action for delay.

The action arose from allegedly defamatory statements published during a 1997 municipal election campaign.

Although the action was commenced in 1998, little progress occurred beyond limited discoveries in 1998, and no steps were taken after the Court of Appeal dismissed a related appeal in 2005.

The court held that the plaintiffs were responsible for inordinate and inexcusable delay and that a presumption of prejudice arose, reinforced by the death of witnesses and the unavailability of key participants.

The plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, and the action was dismissed for delay; the defendant’s counterclaim was also dismissed by consent.