Marie T. Fortier

The defendant, Robert Gates, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action brought by the plaintiff, Melanie Gates, on the grounds that it was commenced after the expiration of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claim, specifically when Melanie Gates knew or ought to have known that Robert Gates was a potential party at fault.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the limitation defence was left for adjudication at trial.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to provide particulars for allegations in her statement of claim, specifically concerning breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The court emphasized that while oral discovery can clarify details, allegations of bad faith under Rule 25.06(8) require "full particulars" to enable the defendants to plead and to limit discovery issues.

The court also clarified that a supporting affidavit from the defendant is not strictly required when the plaintiff's allegations are so general that particulars are clearly necessary.

The motion was substantially granted, requiring the plaintiff to provide specific particulars regarding mismanagement, toxic work environment, detrimental consequences, bad faith, and reputational damage.

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion to compel the defendant, Hockey Canada, to answer questions and produce documents related to its insurance policy and claims history.

The plaintiff, a former high-performance athlete, suffered quadriplegia and alleged Hockey Canada breached its duty to procure adequate insurance.

The court ordered Hockey Canada to produce un-redacted claims bordereaux and other reports, finding they were not protected by litigation or settlement privilege and that post-incident information could be relevant as remedial conduct.

However, the court required the plaintiff to serve notice on non-parties if seeking disclosure of their personal health information.

Phillips and Moulds sought to recover costs awarded against Petrelli Construction and Mr. Petrelli personally, bringing a motion for orders including striking Petrelli Construction's defence to counterclaim, compelling undertakings, and substituted service for an examination in aid of execution.

Petrelli Construction brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the costs order against Mr. Petrelli was unenforceable due to a consumer proposal in bankruptcy, or a referral to Bankruptcy Court, and dismissal of the counterclaim.

The court found the counterclaim discontinued under Rule 24.03, dismissing Phillips and Moulds' related requests.

The issue of the costs order's enforceability against Mr. Petrelli personally was referred to a judge in Bankruptcy Court.

Substituted service on Petrelli Construction for examination was granted, but denied for Mr. Petrelli personally.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce the transcript of her examination for discovery from a separate action against her long-term disability insurer.

The plaintiff opposed, relying on the deemed undertaking rule.

The court granted the motion, finding that the transcript was relevant to the plaintiff's injuries and that the exception under Rule 30.1.01(6) applied, allowing the transcript to be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the plaintiff's testimony.

The plaintiff's action was administratively dismissed for delay after missing the deadline to set the matter down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the action, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to reinstate their counterclaim if the plaintiff was successful.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiff adequately explained the litigation delay and that the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court set aside the dismissal, reinstated both the action and the counterclaim, and ordered the matter to be set down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for refusals against the defendants, seeking answers and productions refused during 2012 examinations for discovery.

The defendants resisted, arguing the motion was brought past a court-ordered deadline of November 30, 2015, and that the information sought was irrelevant or res judicata.

The court found the motion was barred due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the firm timetable set by Master Roger, which required all refusals motions to be filed by the specified deadline.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants in two separate defamation actions brought a motion to consolidate the actions and to compel the plaintiffs to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The actions arose from a report published by the defendants alleging the plaintiffs had ties to terrorist organizations.

The court declined to consolidate the actions into one, noting they were already set for trial, but ordered that they be heard together or consecutively.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to produce certain requested documents relevant to the defence of justification, while denying the request for other documents deemed irrelevant or part of a fishing expedition.

Following the discontinuance of the action, the defendants brought a motion for costs.

In response, the plaintiff filed an affidavit containing correspondence regarding settlement offers.

The defendants brought a motion to strike these paragraphs, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, holding that under Rule 57.01(1), written offers to settle are explicitly contemplated as admissible and relevant factors to be considered on a motion for costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to examine the defendant, a lawyer who formerly represented the other defendants, as a witness before the hearing of the defendants' pending motion for costs.

The plaintiff sought to question the defendant regarding the timing and quantum of his legal account, which was submitted as evidence in the costs motion.

The court granted the motion, finding the evidence relevant and concluding that the defendants failed to prove the examination would be an abuse of process.