Devin Jarcaig

Mr. Langstaff, a defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, moved to amend his counterclaim to add three senior managers of the corporate plaintiffs (Senior Management) as parties, increase exemplary damages, and add claims for defamation, unlawful means, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The motion was opposed on the basis that the proposed amendments were out of time due to limitation periods.

The court denied leave to add Senior Management as parties, finding that the material facts supporting their personal liability were known to Mr. Langstaff by January 2018 or September 2019, and thus the limitation period for adding parties had expired.

However, the court granted leave to increase exemplary damages and to add the new causes of action (defamation, unlawful means, intrusion upon seclusion) against the existing defendants, as the material facts for these claims were already pleaded within the limitation period.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

The defendants moved under Rule 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for further particulars of allegations in a statement of claim arising from a partnership dispute involving ownership and management of an apartment building.

The defendants argued that the pleading alleged fraud and misrepresentation and therefore required detailed particularization under Rule 25.06(8).

The court reviewed the governing principles for ordering particulars, including that particulars are required only when the information is not within the knowledge of the requesting party and is necessary to permit a responsive pleading.

The court found that the statement of claim and the plaintiff’s reply to the demand for particulars sufficiently disclosed the material facts and were not bald allegations.

The motion for further particulars was dismissed.