The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of the defendants' Amended Statement of Defence.
The impugned clauses alleged that the plaintiffs had unclean hands because the claim was a subrogated claim by a title insurer based on false or misleading information provided by the plaintiffs.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs that these allegations were unrelated to the main action regarding renovations and a real estate transaction, and improperly broadened the scope of discovery.
The court ordered the impugned portions struck.
