J. Margie

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions on late production and admissibility of a project bid estimate that it had previously refused to produce during discovery.

The plaintiff argued the document was irrelevant until its expert relied on it for a loss of productivity claim.

The court found the document was always relevant and required leave under Rule 53.08 to be admitted.

The court granted leave, finding no non-compensable prejudice or undue delay, but ordered the plaintiff to produce the native file and submit to further examination at its own expense on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought motions to extend the set down deadline in a 2012 construction deficiency action and to have a related 2017 solicitor's negligence action tried together with it.

The defendants in the construction action cross-moved to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the extension peremptorily to December 31, 2023, finding the delay adequately explained and no actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together and instead stayed the solicitor's negligence action, finding the construction action significantly more complex and that a stay would prevent unnecessary duplication of resources.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to extend the time for service of its statements of claim in two lien actions, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued that costs are not typically awarded to a party seeking an indulgence.

The court held that there is no general rule disentitling a party seeking an indulgence from recovering costs, especially where the opposing party's conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $11,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought motions to extend the time for service of its statements of claim in two construction lien actions, and to validate service or permit substituted service.

The plaintiff had consciously decided not to serve the claims within the 90-day statutory period, ostensibly for financial reasons, and later attempted service by emailing the defendant's lawyer.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for the delay inadequate and the email service invalid.

However, considering the lack of demonstrable prejudice to the defendant and the defendant's own complacency after becoming aware of the liens, the court granted the extensions and dispensed with the requirement for further service.

Following summary judgment motions in two related solicitor negligence actions, the plaintiff sought costs against the unsuccessful defendant and requested a Sanderson or Bullock order to make that defendant liable for the successful defendant's costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in costs against the unsuccessful defendant, applying Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the successful defendant $40,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiff.

The request for a Sanderson or Bullock order was dismissed because the plaintiff did not have a plausible case against the successful defendant and chose to start a separate action rather than add him as a co-defendant.