E. Grigg

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in a $20 million road construction dispute.

The central issue in the action is responsibility for excess rock excavation.

The court dismissed most of the defendants' requests, finding that questions about a 1994 litigation between the parties were irrelevant and that the plaintiffs' answers regarding their blasting subcontractor were sufficient and proportionate.

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide a written answer regarding how they would have bid the job differently only if their expert report provided sufficient data to do so.

The court issued a procedural endorsement setting a timetable for the completion of pleadings, cross-examinations, and document production.

The court also scheduled a motion date to address issues including striking pleadings, duplicitous claims, and severing a third-party action.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff subcontractor's action from Toronto to Brampton.

The action related to a construction project in Mississauga, where both parties performed their work and where related actions were already being case managed.

The court found that the plaintiff's choice of Toronto had no meaningful connection to the dispute other than the location of plaintiff's counsel.

The motion was granted as Brampton was a significantly better and more reasonable venue.

In a derivative action, the defendants brought a motion seeking repayment of legal fees paid by the plaintiffs' representative, John Drake, and the establishment of a protocol for assessing future legal accounts.

The court dismissed the requests for repayment and the imposition of a trust, but established a detailed payment protocol requiring court approval for all future legal invoices rendered to the plaintiffs to ensure they are reasonably incurred.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction dispute.

The plaintiff claimed $78,342.90 for unpaid work, while the defendant counterclaimed for $171,050.98 alleging deficient work and delay.

The court found there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award, as its financial evidence was outdated and all assets were encumbered by a general security agreement.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded it was just to order security for costs and directed the plaintiff to post $10,000 for steps up to the completion of discoveries.