Leighton T. Roslyn

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of Transport Development Inc. (TDI), brought a motion seeking an order compelling Vale Canada Limited (garnishee) and two interested numbered companies to answer questions and produce documents related to the assignment of a contract originally between Vale and TDI.

The plaintiffs sought this information to quantify amounts for a garnishment hearing, alleging the assignment might have been to avoid garnishment.

The interested parties opposed, arguing garnishment rules apply only to "debts" not "contracts," and citing delay, cost, and privacy concerns.

The court found that Rule 60.08(16)(d) provided broad jurisdiction to determine "any other matter in relation to a notice of garnishment," encompassing assigned debts and contracts.

The court emphasized the duty of honest performance in contracts and the relevance of the subsequent assignment to determine rights and liabilities.

The motion for disclosure was granted, subject to a sealing order, with costs reserved.

The plaintiff subcontractor moved for partial summary judgment against the contractor for funds received from the Ministry of Transportation under a highway paving project.

The contractor had admitted in its pleadings that, after specified deductions, $297,710.82 from a $450,000 payment was owed to the plaintiff but later sought to withhold payment pending determination of counterclaims and other related proceedings.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the “full appreciation test” from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held the issue was document‑driven and that the admissions in the pleadings established the debt.

The defendant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial and had not properly pleaded a set‑off.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the admitted amount with prejudgment interest, while the request to have additional funds paid into court was denied.

At a contested status hearing for two related actions, the defendants sought an order dismissing the plaintiffs' actions for delay.

The actions, commenced in 2003 and 2004, involved complex corporate restructuring and real estate disputes.

The defendants argued prejudice due to the delay and the deaths of a plaintiff and a key witness.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not intended to abandon the actions and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, which included numerous interlocutory proceedings.

The court concluded that dismissing the actions would be a draconian step and instead ordered the actions to continue subject to a strict timetable and a guillotine order.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for failure to comply with undertakings given during cross‑examination in a long‑running commercial dispute.

Several undertakings relating to financial records, loan documentation, tax returns, and trust information remained outstanding despite prior court orders requiring compliance.

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to diligently comply and that the attempted responses amounted largely to non‑answers.

While dismissal of the action under Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was considered, the court held that dismissal would be disproportionate at that stage.

Instead, the plaintiffs were precluded from advancing evidence at trial relating to damages allegedly sustained by two corporations or claims based on those corporate losses.