D. Camenzuli

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' amended statement of defence, alleging a continuing pattern of disruptive conduct at examinations for discovery, breaches of court orders, certificates of non-attendance, failure to produce documents, potential spoliation, and failure to answer undertakings and refusals.

The court examined each ground individually and collectively, finding that the defendants' conduct, while imperfect, did not rise to the extraordinary level warranting the striking of pleadings.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,500 payable in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike several paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence under Rule 25.11.

The impugned paragraphs referred to 'without prejudice' correspondence and settlement offers made by the defendant regarding the plaintiff's return to work following an alleged constructive dismissal.

The court found that the communications met the three-part test for settlement privilege, as litigation was on the horizon, the communications were intended not to be disclosed, and their purpose was to settle the dispute.

Consequently, the court struck the offending paragraphs, noting that pleading settlement-privileged communications is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.