The defendant moved to strike the claim based on repeated failure to comply with discovery undertakings and prior consent costs orders.
The court held that striking a claim is a last resort reserved for abusive non-compliance that threatens the integrity of the justice system.
Although the delay was inexcusable and the motion was necessary to prompt compliance, the defendant failed to establish actual or potential prejudice amounting to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.
The motion to strike was dismissed, but motion costs were awarded to the moving party.
