4 total
The court refused to pause Ontario actions pending an Alberta jurisdiction challenge and ordered a procedural timetable.
This endorsement addresses case management issues in two related Ontario actions brought by 2124811 Alberta Ltd. against Formtec International Inc., Enin Solutions Inc., and, in the second action, three individual defendants.
The court considers the relationship between the Ontario actions and a related Alberta action, the defendants' request to pause Ontario proceedings pending an Alberta jurisdiction application, and the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the Ontario actions.
The court orders the Ontario actions to proceed without delay, directs the parties to agree on a timetable, and encourages resolution of the consolidation motion and consideration of whether the Alberta action should continue.
Further production motion dismissed as fishing expedition after discoveries.
In a professional negligence action against a chartered accounting firm arising from alleged failure to detect employee fraud, the plaintiff moved for further production of the defendant’s records after discoveries had already taken place.
The request relied on a new expert report asserting that a professional accountant required access to the complete set of documents and correspondence relating to the defendant’s engagements with the plaintiff from 2001 to 2009.
The court held that the requested production largely duplicated issues that could have been addressed on the earlier production motion and amounted to a fishing expedition.
The moving party failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances or identify specific deficiencies in the existing production.
The motion for further production was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party.
Action dismissed where plaintiff failed to explain delay or rebut prejudice.
At a status hearing under Rule 48.14(13) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why its action should not be dismissed for delay.
The court held that the plaintiff bore the onus of demonstrating both an acceptable explanation for litigation delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.
The plaintiff filed only a brief affidavit that failed to explain extended periods of inactivity and provided no evidence addressing prejudice.
Evidence from the remaining defendants established that key witnesses could no longer be located, creating significant litigation prejudice.
The court concluded the plaintiff failed to meet either branch of the test and dismissed the action for delay with costs.
Leave to appeal denied; Master correctly limited documentary discovery to issues of fraud pleaded.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their appeal from a Master's decision.
The Master had dismissed their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant accounting firm, limiting the scope of relevant documents to those relating to the fraud identified in a forensic auditor's report.
The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order regarding relevance.
Although the motion judge erred in applying an overly restrictive standard of review, this error had no impact on the outcome.
