2 total
The court declined to stay a counterclaim over delayed disclosure of a non-party agreement but granted third-party discovery.
The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.
The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.
The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.
Motions to strike pleadings granted as they improperly referenced communications and documents protected by settlement privilege.
The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.
The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.
The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.
The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.