Jennifer Siemon

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff estate.

The estate sued the defendants, alleging that the defendant lawyer erroneously advised the estate's executor that the estate would receive half the proceeds from the sale of a property owned by the deceased's spouse.

In a related family law proceeding, the court had already determined that the deceased and his spouse were not separated, meaning the estate had no entitlement to the proceeds.

The court found that the estate had insufficient assets to pay a costs award and that its claim was devoid of practical merit.

The motion was granted, and the estate was ordered to post security for costs in tranches.

The defendant Maryvale brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to pay two costs awards totaling $51,500 arising from a successful appeal and a dismissed leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Rules 57.03 and 60.12 as the costs orders did not arise from a contested motion or interlocutory order.

The court found that even if it had jurisdiction, dismissing the action would not be just, as the Court of Appeal had ordered a new trial without making costs payment a precondition, the costs were not sanctions for bad behaviour, the plaintiff's claim was not devoid of merit, and the plaintiff was impecunious.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to schedule a pre-trial and set the matter down for trial.

The defendant objected, noting the plaintiff had just served an Amended Statement of Claim, which would require an amended defence and potentially further discoveries.

The court declined to schedule the pre-trial, directing the parties to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding amended pleadings and to move the matter forward without relying on judicial supervision unless necessary.

The plaintiff, suing the school board for historical abuse by a teacher, brought a motion to compel production of his grade 3 class register and the last known contact information of his classmates.

The school board opposed, arguing that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) prohibited disclosure, that the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies, and that the request was disproportionate and violated the classmates' privacy.

The court granted the motion, holding that civil discovery rights are distinct from MFIPPA access rights, the classmates were potential witnesses, and the privacy concerns did not outweigh the need for disclosure.

The court limited the scope of the school board's search for contact information to ensure proportionality.