2 total
Appeal allowed; motion judge erred by striking defence of equitable set-off without applying the Telford factors.
The respondents sued the appellant for $580,000 paid pursuant to an oral contract for temporary foreign worker employment positions, alleging the contracts were fraudulent.
The appellant counterclaimed for $170,000 and pleaded equitable set-off.
The motion judge struck the defence of set-off.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge failed to apply the Telford factors for equitable set-off and that the appellant's claim was proper given the close connection between the parties' claims.
Party who ignored disclosure orders denied reinstatement of pleadings but allowed limited trial participation.
The respondent spouse brought motions seeking to set aside a prior order striking his pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure obligations and to extend the time for delivering financial disclosure in a family support proceeding.
The court reviewed the lengthy procedural history and concluded the moving party had repeatedly ignored disclosure orders and failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the prolonged non-compliance.
Applying appellate guidance on the discretionary power to strike pleadings for litigation misconduct, the court declined to reinstate the pleadings.
However, to assist the court’s fact‑finding process on outstanding support issues, the moving party was granted limited participation rights at trial, restricted to cross‑examination and submissions.
Costs were awarded against the moving party.
