L. Boritz

The applicant landlord commenced an application seeking various relief, including termination of commercial leases and a declaration regarding rent adjustments.

The respondent tenant brought a motion under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the application in favour of arbitration.

The court applied the Peace River framework and found that the matters in dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement in the leases.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The moving defendants brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by the plaintiffs during examinations for discovery, including questions answered under Rule 34.12(2).

The court declined to make a blanket ruling deferring all Rule 34.12(2) answers to the trial judge, opting to rule on relevance for discovery purposes while leaving trial admissibility to the trial judge.

The court found that questions regarding past development applications and the plaintiffs' own redevelopment intentions were improperly refused and must be answered.

However, questions regarding the plaintiffs' current willingness to accept integration features, the substance of settlement discussions, and the plaintiffs' financial information were properly refused.

The court held that pleading the fact of settlement discussions to explain delay does not waive settlement privilege over the substance of those discussions.