J. Lancaster

The moving defendants brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by the plaintiffs during examinations for discovery, including questions answered under Rule 34.12(2).

The court declined to make a blanket ruling deferring all Rule 34.12(2) answers to the trial judge, opting to rule on relevance for discovery purposes while leaving trial admissibility to the trial judge.

The court found that questions regarding past development applications and the plaintiffs' own redevelopment intentions were improperly refused and must be answered.

However, questions regarding the plaintiffs' current willingness to accept integration features, the substance of settlement discussions, and the plaintiffs' financial information were properly refused.

The court held that pleading the fact of settlement discussions to explain delay does not waive settlement privilege over the substance of those discussions.

The moving party defendant, Dufferin, brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to correct the names of John Doe defendants to three proposed defendants under the doctrine of misnomer.

The court found that a defendant has standing to bring a misnomer motion.

The court granted the motion with respect to two proposed defendants (TIL and TIES), finding that the 'litigating finger' pointed at them and they would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion with respect to the third proposed defendant (TDI), finding that although the 'litigating finger' pointed at them, they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to significant delay and lack of notice, and the moving party failed to show reasonable due diligence under the discoverability principle.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce an accepted offer to settle a construction lien claim for $75,000.

The defendant argued that the settlement sum was all-inclusive and included costs, and alternatively asked the court to exercise its discretion not to enforce the settlement.

The court found that the offer was made pursuant to Rule 49 and, being silent on costs, entitled the plaintiff to assessed costs up to the date of acceptance under Rule 49.07(5).

The court declined to exercise its discretion to reject the settlement, finding no evidence of mistake and noting the prejudice to the plaintiff if the lengthy litigation were to continue.