D. MacKeigan

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought directions and a timetable for a summary judgment motion regarding an unpaid $138,134.33 instalment on a commercial roofing contract.

The defendants sought to amend their counterclaim to allege fraud on unrelated projects and requested further cross-examinations and productions.

The court held that the proposed counterclaim should not delay the summary judgment motion, emphasizing the need for proportionate and expeditious proceedings under Rule 1.04 and Hryniak.

The court directed that the summary judgment motion proceed without further cross-examinations or productions related to the counterclaim.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the production of documents relating to unauthorized transfers from its business bank account.

The defendant consented to producing documents specific to the plaintiff's account but opposed producing documents relating to other online bank security breaches and the bank's general website security specifications.

The court dismissed the contested requests, finding that the request for documents about other breaches was a speculative fishing expedition without evidence of a systemic issue.

The court also held that the request for the bank's security specifications was premature, disproportionate to the $150,000 claim, and posed significant security risks.