Jean-Francois Lalonde

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligence regarding the installation of a video wall system, claiming the system never worked.

The defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of the contract and extra charges, and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and grant his counterclaim.

The court first granted a misnomer motion to correct the plaintiff's corporate names.

On the merits, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the defendant completed the work, the system functioned properly, and the delays were not the defendant's fault.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim for the unpaid balance and extras.

The plaintiff sued for damages arising from altercations with security guards.

Shortly before the jury trial commenced, the defendants conducted surveillance on the plaintiff and disclosed the video and report to the plaintiff's counsel.

During the trial, the defendants sought to use the surveillance as substantive evidence or for impeachment.

The plaintiff argued the evidence should be excluded due to late disclosure.

The court held that the defendants required leave to introduce the evidence under Rule 48.04, as the matter had been set down for trial.

The court declined to exclude the evidence outright, finding it relevant and material, but granted the plaintiff a 1.5-day adjournment to review the footage and prepare.