Cheryl McLuckie

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a discovery dispute, seeking to exclude one co-defendant from the virtual discovery of the other and requesting costs thrown away for previously cancelled discoveries.

The court found that the risks of improper collaboration are heightened during virtual discoveries when co-defendants are in the same location without counsel present.

The court ordered that the co-defendants be examined in the absence of each other.

The request for costs thrown away was denied due to both counsel's failure to communicate effectively and agree on a discovery plan.

Montel brought a motion to strike the defendants' counterclaims and for judgment on unpaid invoices in Action No. 1.

The defendants sought to stay Action No. 1 and consolidate it with Action No. 2, which involved claims for breach of a distribution agreement.

Montel also moved to dismiss Action No. 2 based on a forum selection clause.

The court struck the counterclaims in Action No. 1 as duplicitous of claims in Action No. 2 and granted judgment to Montel for the unpaid invoices, refusing a stay.

The court dismissed Montel's jurisdictional motion, finding the validity of the agreement containing the forum clause was a triable issue.

Finally, the court allowed Kipawa to be added as a plaintiff in Action No. 2 but denied consolidation, ordering consecutive trials instead.