J. Campbell

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2015 but took no steps for over five years while the principal of the plaintiff corporations faced criminal charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set the action down for trial, but later abandoned it and served a trial record.

The defendants brought cross-motions to proceed with the status hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they unilaterally held the action in abeyance without communicating with the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiffs failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for a further and better Affidavit of Documents, challenging the defendant's claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over certain internal emails.

The plaintiff had previously received an anonymous package of the defendant's documents, which she reviewed before returning.

The court reviewed the contested documents and found that they were all protected by either solicitor-client privilege, as part of the continuum of legal advice, or litigation privilege, having been created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation following the plaintiff's termination.

The motion was dismissed, and the documents were not ordered to be produced.

Following summary judgment motions in two related solicitor negligence actions, the plaintiff sought costs against the unsuccessful defendant and requested a Sanderson or Bullock order to make that defendant liable for the successful defendant's costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in costs against the unsuccessful defendant, applying Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the successful defendant $40,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiff.

The request for a Sanderson or Bullock order was dismissed because the plaintiff did not have a plausible case against the successful defendant and chose to start a separate action rather than add him as a co-defendant.