Karen E. Jolley

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's representative to reattend discovery and answer numerous refused questions across four categories.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the questions were irrelevant or privileged.

The court largely upheld the plaintiff's refusals, finding most questions irrelevant to the core issues of the case, such as the nature of the business relationship (franchise vs. license) or the plaintiff's subjective understanding of legal requirements.

Only one minor question regarding inventory was ordered to be answered.

The plaintiff, Tripsetter Inc., brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendants, 2161907 Alberta Ltd., Canopy Growth Corporation, and Justin Farbstein, and answers to undertakings and a refusal.

The core dispute concerned whether the parties' relationship was a franchise or a license, impacting disclosure obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court ordered the production of a Franchise Disclosure Document and a Financial Projections Document, finding them relevant to the nature of the relationship and the defendants' disclosure exemption arguments.

However, the plaintiff's general request for a further affidavit of documents and its requests regarding the undertakings and refusal were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, Bombardier Inc., brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Triple-K Consult Ltd., to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

Bombardier argued it had a contractual right to audit the plaintiff's activities to verify compliance with their sales representative agreement and applicable laws before commissions were payable.

The plaintiff contended it had complied with the audit request and that further demands were beyond the contractual scope.

The court largely dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff had substantially complied and that many of the requested documents were not relevant or better pursued through discovery.

The court ordered only the production of supporting documents for $35,000 in expenses claimed by the plaintiff's principal.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident tort claim, the plaintiffs brought a motion for costs and an increase in the pre-judgment interest rate.

The court assessed the costs of the civil action, reducing the amount claimed to account for expenses incurred due to a trial adjournment requested by the plaintiffs.

The court also considered whether the tort defendant should contribute to the costs the plaintiffs incurred in parallel statutory accident benefits (SABs) proceedings, ultimately ordering a $20,000 contribution because the SABs settlements significantly reduced the defendant's tort exposure.

The plaintiffs' request to increase the pre-judgment interest rate to offset statutory deductible increases was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property purchased by one of the corporate defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that funds owed to it for unpaid meat supplies were diverted by the debtor corporation's directors to fund the property purchase, claiming a constructive trust and tracing remedy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff was essentially an unsecured creditor seeking to secure a debt rather than asserting a genuine interest in land, and that other remedies were available.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of the instructing letter and communications between defence counsel and their expert witness.

The plaintiffs argued that a factual assumption the expert was asked to make regarding the onset time of the deceased's chest pain contradicted the defendant doctor's discovery evidence, suggesting improper coaching.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that counsel improperly influenced the expert, and held that litigation privilege continued to protect the communications.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the action for delay and to discharge a construction lien and certificate of action, arguing the lien was registered out of time.

The court dismissed the motion to dismiss for delay, finding the delay was not inordinate, inexcusable, or intentional, and did not cause prejudice.

The court also dismissed the motion to discharge the lien, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the date the contract was abandoned, which was crucial for determining the timeliness of the lien registration.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement.

The parties resolved most issues, but the court upheld the defendant's refusal to produce accident response training modules, finding them irrelevant to liability or damages.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff improperly included privileged mediation brief excerpts in her motion record, ordering their removal and a sealing order.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, reduced due to the improper inclusion of privileged materials.

The defendant architect brought a motion for particulars of the plaintiffs' fresh as amended statement of claim regarding alleged design errors and cost overruns on a hotel redevelopment project.

The defendant also sought to strike a paragraph pleading the purchase of professional liability insurance.

The court dismissed the motion for particulars, finding the plaintiffs had provided sufficient detail in their response to enable the defendant to plead, and that further detail was a matter for discovery.

The court granted the motion to strike the insurance paragraph, finding it scandalous and irrelevant to the dispute.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to his failure to comply with two prior court orders requiring him to answer undertakings and refusals, and to pay costs.

The self-represented defendant argued the ordered undertakings were overly broad and intrusive, but provided no evidence of inability to pay costs and did not indicate a willingness to comply.

The court found the defendant unwilling to comply with court orders and struck the statement of defence, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraphs 19-24 of the plaintiff's reply and defence to counterclaim, arguing they were scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The impugned paragraphs contained allegations of drug addiction, spousal violence, and anger issues against the personal defendants.

The court found these allegations to be irrelevant personal attacks that did not clarify the issues in dispute regarding alleged financial irregularities.

The motion was granted and the paragraphs were struck.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to deliver a further affidavit in their application seeking reinstatement of their membership in the respondent centre.

The applicants had already cross-examined the respondent's deponent but sought to introduce evidence addressing a new ground for termination allegedly raised during the cross-examination.

The court granted leave, finding the evidence potentially relevant to the applicants' claim that false information was provided to the membership, that there was no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent, and that there was a reasonable explanation for the evidence not being included initially.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination action, brought a motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and undertakings.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the age and termination status of other senior management team members, finding them relevant to the defendant's pleadings.

However, the court dismissed requests for the recruitment file of a replacement executive director and notes from an in camera board meeting, finding the former irrelevant and the latter protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's law firm as lawyers of record, arguing he was a former and current near-client of the firm and had provided confidential information.

The court found the defendant was a current near-client due to his close association with the firm's existing corporate clients.

The court also found the firm failed to rebut the presumption that it received relevant confidential information and failed to implement a timely ethical screen.

The motion was granted and the law firm was disqualified.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence after the defendant repeatedly delayed and ultimately failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

Despite a prior court order mandating the completion of discoveries by a set date and warning of consequences for further non-attendance, the defendant refused to proceed unless it could examine the plaintiff first, contrary to the plaintiff's notice of examination.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and struck the statement of defence pursuant to Rules 34.15(1)(b) and 60.12.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay and failure to restore it to the trial list.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found that while the plaintiff's explanation for the delay was less than stellar, it was acceptable and not contumelious.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The plaintiff's motion to restore the action was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was dismissed, though a timetable for outstanding undertakings was ordered.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the defendant due to the plaintiff's delay and short service.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to deliver copies of his schedule A productions and to attend an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment due to late service of the motion materials, which was denied given the age of the 2015 action and the need to move it forward.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the motion was premature, that the defendant had waived its right to discovery, or that a notice of examination was required.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide electronic copies of his productions and attend an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to add claims against the corporate directors for unpaid wages under the OBCA and CBCA.

One of the directors opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike the existing ESA claims, arguing the claims were premature because the corporate employer had not yet been sued to judgment and execution returned unsatisfied.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend, finding the claims were not clearly untenable at law and could be tried together with the corporate claims.

The court dismissed the director's cross-motion to strike, finding it was brought too late and was an improper disguised summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sought to amend her statement of claim to correct a misnomer, substituting 'John Doe' with 'Dr. Hung-Tat Lo' as a defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court considered whether the proposed defendant would have objectively known the litigation was directed at him, applying the 'litigating finger' test.

Despite discrepancies in the pleaded facts and the proposed defendant's account, the court found that he would have recognized himself as the intended target.

The court also determined that the delay in bringing the motion was not inordinate or unexplained.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion without notice to the foreign defendant, Taizhou Chuangju Valve Co. Ltd., seeking orders for substituted service, validation of service, and an extension of time for service of the statement of claim.

The motion followed an unsuccessful attempt to serve the foreign defendant via the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the request for validation of service, finding no evidence of evasion, but granted substituted service by regular mail and extended the time for service.

The court also declined to award costs, noting the motion was brought without notice and there was no evidence of deliberate evasion by the foreign defendant.