3 total
Motion to dismiss action based on deemed admissions denied; plaintiff permitted to withdraw admissions due to counsel's inadvertence.
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred, relying on deemed admissions resulting from the plaintiff's failure to respond to a Request to Admit.
The plaintiff argued the failure was due to counsel's inadvertence and sought to withdraw the deemed admissions.
Applying the test from Antipas v. Coroneos, the court found the proposed response raised a triable issue regarding discoverability, the failure to respond was inadvertent, and the withdrawal could be compensated in costs.
The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was permitted to serve the response.
Corporate plaintiffs ordered to post security for costs after failing to demonstrate sufficient assets or claim merits.
The defendants and third party brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs, who operated a fitness club before defaulting on their commercial lease and equipment leases.
The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient assets, impecuniosity, or a good chance of success on the merits of their conspiracy and conversion claims.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $80,000 in security for costs for each of the Crunch defendants, the Church defendant, and the third party.
Appeal dismissed as the appellant failed to disclose a defence on the merits.
The appellants appealed a decision of the motion judge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellants failed to disclose a defence on the merits.
Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.
