2 total
Motion to implement Pierringer agreement granted with terms protecting the non-settling defendant's procedural and discovery rights.
The plaintiffs and two of the three defendants in a multi-party aviation negligence action entered into a Pierringer agreement.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to implement the agreement, seeking to amend their claim to proceed only against the non-settling defendant (NAV Canada) for its proportionate share of fault, and to dismiss all crossclaims and third-party claims.
NAV Canada did not oppose the dismissal but sought terms to preserve its discovery rights against the settling defendants.
The court held it had jurisdiction to dismiss the crossclaims as they would become untenable once the plaintiffs limited their claim.
The court granted the motion on terms designed to protect NAV Canada's procedural rights, including orders for the preservation of evidence and the ability to seek discovery from the settling defendants if necessary.
Court orders joint case management and common discoveries in related aviation negligence actions.
Multiple procedural motions arose in two related aviation negligence actions seeking recovery of insured losses after aircraft hydroplaned and left runways at Ottawa International Airport.
The plaintiffs sought coordinated case management, common discoveries and production, and trial management orders, while the defendants challenged the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and disputes arose regarding discovery scheduling.
The court ordered that the actions proceed under joint case management with common discoveries and productions on overlapping issues and removed the deemed undertaking as between the two proceedings.
Leave was granted for extended examinations for discovery due to the limited availability of a key pilot witness.
The court directed further review of the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and reserved remaining issues, including sanctions and costs, for later determination.
