The defendants brought a motion seeking further particulars of allegations in a statement of claim relating to alleged improper transactions between related corporate entities.
The plaintiff had already responded that the allegations concerned all relevant transactions, which the defendants argued improperly expanded disclosure beyond the applicable limitation period.
The court held that the adequacy of particulars was the only issue on the motion and that limitation issues relating to document production should be addressed in a separate motion if necessary.
The responses provided were found to be adequate and the defendants were not entitled to further particulars.
The court also criticized the defendants’ procedural conduct, including filing a confusing and unscheduled Rule 21 motion and mishandling scheduling and correspondence, which unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.
