Kevin Wilbee

The decision addresses two motions in an estate dispute: a motion by Julie Garneau for production of records from several non-parties under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a motion by Karen Joanne Garneau to strike Julie's Reply Affidavit.

The court struck the Reply Affidavit as improper reply evidence and dismissed the production motion as premature, finding that the parties had not yet exchanged affidavits of documents or conducted discoveries.

The court held that the requested records could be sought after the discovery phase if necessary, and that some records were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The applicants sought an order for the removal of a gate obstructing a shared right-of-way and an injunction against further interference.

The respondents argued the gate was for security and brought a motion to strike parts of the applicants' affidavits.

The court granted the applicants' motion to strike scandalous allegations from the respondents' affidavits, finding them irrelevant.

The court then determined that the gate constituted a substantial interference with the applicants' right-of-way, particularly for vehicular access, and rejected the respondents' security justification as insufficient.

The court ordered the gate's removal and restrained the respondents from further obstruction.

The self-represented defendant brought an ex parte motion seeking an adjournment of a summary trial, consolidation of actions, and revisions to a discovery plan.

The plaintiffs brought a separate motion in a newly commenced related action seeking its dismissal as an abuse of process.

The court found that neither motion was ready for hearing due to late service of materials and unrealistic time estimates.

Both motions were adjourned to a special appointment hearing, with a temporary stay imposed on the new action.