The defendant, Fay Brunning, brought a motion to temporarily stay a defamation action commenced against her by the plaintiffs, James Wallbridge, Almeda Wallbridge, and Wallbridge, Wallbridge, seeking damages in excess of $15 million.
Brunning argued for a stay to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings, citing ongoing Requests for Directions (RFDs) within the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) that raised similar issues regarding the plaintiffs' conduct.
However, the RFDs were subsequently dismissed by Justice Perell, eliminating the multiplicity concern.
Brunning also argued that confidentiality concerns related to IAP documents and solicitor-client privilege prevented her from adequately defending the defamation action.
The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no outstanding proceedings with common facts, and that mechanisms existed to address confidentiality concerns without preventing Brunning from defending herself.
The court also found that a stay would prejudice the plaintiffs' ability to seek a remedy for the alleged harm.