Jeffrey C. Silver

The plaintiff in a passing off action brought a motion for further production of the defendant's documents, including financial statements, tax returns, sales records, and website traffic data, to assist its expert in calculating damages.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the defendant's financial statements and general ledgers, subject to redactions for relevance and commercial sensitivity.

The court denied the requests for tax returns, monthly sales totals, salary details, sales forecasts, and website traffic data, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish their relevance or existence.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend its statement of claim and extended the time to set the action down for trial.

This endorsement addresses a procedural dispute regarding the order of upcoming motions.

The Defendants brought a motion for contempt and other relief, alleging the Plaintiff violated a prior court order.

The Plaintiff, in turn, brought a motion to strike the Defendants' contempt motion, arguing it could not succeed and seeking to avoid being compelled to testify or submit an affidavit in defense of the contempt allegations.

The court agreed with the Plaintiff, ruling that the motion to strike should be heard first, as its success could significantly reduce the need for the Defendants' broader motion and protect the Plaintiff's right not to testify in contempt proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion requesting an order to transfer the proceeding into case management, which the defendants opposed.

The court considered the factors under Rule 77.05(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity of issues, public importance, number of parties, anticipated court intervention, discovery time, and any substantial delay.

Despite the proceeding being over two years old and ongoing disagreements between the parties regarding discovery and amendments, the court found no substantial delay or demonstrated need for court intervention to warrant case management at that time.

The plaintiff's request for case management was dismissed, but the court ordered all parties to deliver sworn affidavits of documents and Schedule "A" productions by a specific date to facilitate the progression of discovery.

Following a motion concerning document production and inspection of property under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs.

The moving party obtained limited relief permitting a partial inspection of the responding party’s property but was unsuccessful in obtaining additional production.

The responding parties successfully resisted portions of the inspection request but not others.

Given the divided success and the limited relevance of the moving party’s settlement offers, the court held that neither side was significantly more successful.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further document production and an order permitting inspection of the defendants' custom-built home under Rule 32.01.

The underlying action involved claims of copyright infringement regarding exterior precast moulds, and a counterclaim for diminution in value due to the loss of the home's uniqueness.

The Master dismissed the request for interior design documents as irrelevant to the pleadings.

The Master granted the request for an inspection by a real estate appraiser and an interior designer, finding it necessary to test the defendants' claim of uniqueness, but denied an inspection by an architect.

The Master also set conditions for the inspection, allowing the plaintiff's counsel to attend and permitting photography, while denying the defendants' request for a sealing order.

Following dismissal of a motion challenging confirmation of a case management master's report, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an earlier offer to settle under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that although the offer technically met Rule 49.10 requirements, it lacked meaningful compromise and therefore declined to strictly apply the rule’s presumptive cost consequences.

Considering the principles of reasonableness, the complexity of the motion, the volume of materials, and factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at a global amount.

Costs were awarded on a discretionary basis rather than strictly under the offer‑to‑settle regime.