Dash

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for abuse of process and breach of a court order requiring attendance at discovery and production of documents, or alternatively to strike a notice on title and compel further productions.

The plaintiff cross-moved to extend the time for discovery after his visa to enter Canada was refused.

The Master found the plaintiff's failure to attend discovery was explained and his document production, while deficient, showed substantial compliance.

The Master dismissed the motion to dismiss the action and the motion to strike the notice on title, finding no abuse of process and lacking jurisdiction to strike the notice.

The plaintiff was granted an extension for discovery but ordered to post security and provide a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff, a professional hockey player, was seriously injured by the defendant during a game.

The plaintiff sued the defendant and the team owners, alleging vicarious and direct liability.

The defendant issued a third party claim against the head coach.

The defendants and third party subsequently entered into a secret settlement agreement that dismissed the cross-claims and third party claim, and apportioned liability among them.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel production of the settlement agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the agreement changed the landscape of the litigation and must be disclosed to ensure trial fairness, regardless of whether settlement privilege is a class privilege or determined on a case-by-case basis.