J. McReynolds

Two siblings, acting as co-Estate Trustees for their late father's estate, engaged in extensive litigation against each other, paralyzing the estate's administration.

The brother brought a motion to remove his sister as co-Estate Trustee and to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The sister brought a cross-motion to strike the brother's counterclaim regarding the ownership of a corporate asset, arguing it was statute-barred.

The court declined to remove the sister as trustee on a paper record but appointed an ETDL due to the severe conflict of interest and hostility between the siblings.

The motion to strike the counterclaim was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding discoverability and the nature of the declaratory relief sought.

In a commercial lease dispute involving allegations of rent overpayment and underpayment, both the plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering both parties to answer certain questions and produce specific financial and lease-related documents, while dismissing requests that were overbroad or disproportionate.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.14 for an extension of time to set the action down for trial.

The action arose from a 2014-2015 sub-tenancy dispute.

The case had stalled since early 2017 because the plaintiff failed to answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for the delay—including the death of a principal, counsel's injury, and the COVID-19 pandemic—to be vague and unsatisfactory given the length of inactivity.

Presuming prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, the court dismissed the motion and dismissed the action for delay.