J. Finkel

The plaintiffs brought a motion to consolidate four separate actions arising from a franchise dispute, including claims against the franchisor, accountants, and lawyers.

All parties consented except for one defendant accountant.

The court applied Rule 6.01 and found that the actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same series of transactions, specifically the plaintiffs' reliance on allegedly inaccurate financial statements.

The court granted the motion to consolidate the actions and ordered that a related third-party claim be heard at the same time or immediately after the consolidated action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant Township of Oro-Medonte to answer questions refused at an examination for discovery, produce Standard Operating Procedures, and re-attend discovery.

The defendant argued leave was required because the matter had been set down for trial.

The court found leave was not required as the motion record was served before the trial record, but would have granted leave regardless.

The court ordered the defendant to answer the refused questions, produce the requested documents, and have its representative re-attend discovery at its own expense, finding the requested information relevant to whether the defendant acted reasonably in its response to the downed hydro wires.