At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to abandon his summary judgment motion following extensive new documentary disclosure by the defendants, and instead proceed to trial.
The plaintiff also indicated an intention to amend his statement of claim and file a jury notice.
The defendants argued that the motion judge should remain seized as the trial judge or at least determine the costs of the abandoned motion.
The court held that the summary judgment motion would not proceed, directed further examinations on the newly produced documents, and deferred the issues of costs and whether the motion judge should be seized as the trial judge to a later formal motion.
