Kevin Daniel Schoenfeldt

The plaintiffs and Pensio defendants brought undertakings and refusals motions involving over 140 questions arising from examinations for discovery.

The motions concerned a dispute over a $1,000,000 rental income program fee paid by the plaintiffs to a lawyer's trust account.

The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The defendants asserted solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege over various communications and documents.

The court addressed numerous discovery disputes, balancing the principles of relevance, proportionality, and privilege, and made determinations on approximately 140 disputed questions across multiple examinations.

The plaintiffs and Pensio defendants brought undertakings and refusals motions involving over 140 questions arising from examinations for discovery.

The motions concerned a dispute over a $1,000,000 rental income program fee paid by the plaintiffs to a lawyer's trust account.

The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The defendants asserted solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege over various communications and documents.

The court addressed numerous discovery disputes, balancing the principles of relevance, proportionality, and privilege, and made determinations on approximately 140 disputed questions across multiple examinations.

The court considered whether Baketree Inc. validly exercised its option to extend a commercial lease with Nico Properties Inc., or whether alleged defaults precluded the extension.

The court found that Baketree met all preconditions for extension, including payment of rent, compliance with lease terms, and maintenance of financial strength.

Even if there had been a default, the court would have granted relief from forfeiture.

However, Baketree lost its right to negotiate a purchase of the property under Schedule E due to prior defaults, and the court declined to grant relief from forfeiture for that right.

The defendants brought separate motions to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing personal hardships and economic challenges as reasons for the delay.

The court found the six-year delay to be inordinate but excusable given the plaintiff's personal circumstances and found insufficient evidence of substantial prejudice to the defendants.

The motions to dismiss were dismissed, and the court imposed a strict timetable for the action to proceed to trial.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Au Defendants successfully sought the removal of the plaintiff's lawyers but were unsuccessful in obtaining production of litigation files.

The Au Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was avoidable.

The plaintiff opposed substantial indemnity and sought a reduction in partial indemnity costs.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs, noting that declining voluntary withdrawal or opposing the motion did not constitute reprehensible conduct.

It acknowledged divided success but emphasized the Au Defendants' primary success.

The court awarded the Au Defendants $22,000 in partial indemnity costs.

Additionally, Clark Peddle, a non-moving defendant, was awarded $1,000 in costs for his Rule 39.03 examination, which was deemed largely irrelevant to the motion's disposition and unopposed by the plaintiff.