Susan Chapman

At a Commercial List case conference involving two related corporate disputes, the court addressed extensive procedural delays, voluminous filings, and lack of cooperation between counsel.

The proceedings involved claims relating to loan agreements, alleged rights to corporate shares, fiduciary duty breaches, and conspiracy allegations arising from financing arrangements and subsequent litigation.

The court declined to permit consolidation or bifurcation but ordered that both actions be heard together or sequentially.

Emphasizing proportionality under Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court directed the parties to disclose damages calculations, draft opening statements, and detailed historical and projected litigation costs.

The directions aimed to enable meaningful case management and ensure efficient use of judicial resources.

At the commencement of his sexual assault trial, the accused applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for disclosure of Toronto Police Service occurrence reports relating to the complainant.

The accused argued the records, which included a 2009 finding that the complainant was not criminally responsible in an unrelated matter, were relevant to her credibility and reliability.

The court dismissed the application, finding the records were sought solely for impermissible impeachment purposes, lacked a temporal nexus to the alleged assault, and did not meet the threshold of likely relevance required for production.