Ilana Schrager

Following a motion concerning whether a statement of claim should be amended to replace John Doe defendants with identified individuals, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of over $64,000 after achieving partial success in adding several individuals as defendants.

The responding parties argued that costs should be reduced because success was divided and because significant work occurred before the individuals formally opposed the motion.

The court rejected arguments that costs should be apportioned based on the number of individuals added and accepted that earlier work was intertwined with the amendment issue.

However, the court reduced the requested amount to account for delay and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to substitute five named individuals for 'John Doe' defendants.

The action involved allegations that the defendants improperly accessed and used the plaintiff's confidential bond trading information.

The court applied the two-part test for misnomer, focusing on whether the 'litigating finger' pointed at the proposed defendants such that they would have known they were the intended parties.

The court granted the motion for four of the individuals, finding they would have recognized they were implicated by the allegations of accessing or destroying information, but denied it for one individual whose role was not clearly implicated by the pleadings.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning alleged neuropsychiatric side effects of the smoking cessation drug Champix, the defendants brought a refusals motion seeking further production of medical and related records from proposed representative plaintiffs during cross‑examinations conducted for a certification motion.

The defendants argued the additional records were necessary to challenge whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and certification criteria.

The court accepted that the requested information had some relevance but held that the scope of cross‑examination on a certification motion is narrower than discovery and must comply with proportionality principles.

Given that the plaintiffs had already produced medical records and answered extensive questions, compelling further production would improperly extend the inquiry into the merits of the case and impose a disproportionate burden.

The motion to compel further answers and productions was therefore dismissed.