E. Ngondo

The proposed defendant, Trisan, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's lawyer to answer questions refused during cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of a motion to amend the statement of claim.

The refused questions related to instructions the lawyer received from the plaintiff regarding the timing of adding Trisan as a defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions were properly refused on the basis of solicitor-client privilege and that the plaintiff's post-discovery litigation strategy was irrelevant to the application of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

This solicitor negligence action involved a motion brought by the self-represented plaintiff seeking orders for production of a former lawyer's file and retainer agreements, further particulars of the statement of defence, and a stay of proceedings pending review of a prior order removing the defendants as counsel.

The court dismissed all requested relief, finding the production requests premature and the particulars unnecessary as they sought evidence rather than material facts.

The request for a stay was also denied as premature.

The court imposed a modified discovery plan proposed by the defendants.

The defendants, an appraisal service, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a negligence action by the plaintiff mortgage financing company, MCAP, on the basis that the action was commenced beyond the applicable limitation period.

MCAP alleged that the defendants negligently overvalued a property in a 2012 appraisal, leading to a loss on a 2013 mortgage loan.

The court found that MCAP had sufficient knowledge to discover its claim by June 15, 2016, or at the latest, September 6, 2016, when it received various post-default valuations and opinions questioning the original appraisal's accuracy.

The court rejected MCAP's argument that its internal protocol justified delaying discovery until the property sale was complete or a retrospective valuation was obtained.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.