Associate Judge Marie T. Fortier

The defendants, Shukri Ali Ali and The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Yassin Aden Osman, did not oppose the motion and failed to appear.

The court found that the plaintiff's default was intentional and contumelious, demonstrating disrespect for the court process through serial violations of court orders and non-attendance.

Additionally, the delay was found to be inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible, particularly due to the loss of witnesses and inability to inspect the vehicle.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action against all defendants and awarding costs to the moving defendants.

The applicant, as estate trustee, brought a motion for directions seeking an order for a formal passing of accounts by the respondent for his time acting as their mother's Power of Attorney for Property.

The applicant also sought to have issues regarding a mortgage held in the respondent's name tried jointly.

The court dismissed the motion for a formal passing of accounts, finding that the respondent had already provided extensive informal accounting and the applicant failed to raise any significant concern or specific allegations of misfeasance to warrant a formal passing.

A case conference was ordered to address the remaining mortgage issues.

The plaintiff landscaping company brought a construction lien action for an unpaid balance of $19,465.00 for stonework performed at the owner's property.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages for delay and deficiencies.

At the reference, the plaintiff moved to strike portions of a defendant's affidavit that contradicted an admission made on discovery that the defendant had not corrected the alleged deficiencies.

The court refused to allow the withdrawal of the admission, finding it would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim, finding the delays were caused by the general contractor and there was no evidence of deficiencies.

The general contractor was ordered to pay the outstanding balance, and the owner was found personally liable for the $18,000.00 statutory holdback.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The parties brought cross-motions arising from examinations for discovery in an action concerning a cancelled procurement process for visa application centres.

The defendant sought further financial documents from the plaintiff, which the court dismissed, finding the plaintiff had already produced all existing relevant documents.

The plaintiff sought answers to several refused questions.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose the name of its forensic accountant or undertake not to call them at trial, produce communications with third parties as common interest privilege did not apply, answer whether it could cancel the procurement at will, and produce a 2005 contract.

The court upheld the defendant's refusal to disclose the contract's Approval Value due to Cabinet confidence privilege.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff had abandoned the action and that reinstatement would be prejudicial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding an adequate explanation for the litigation delay (counsel's illness), inadvertence in missing the deadline, and that the motion to set aside was brought promptly.

While acknowledging presumptive prejudice due to the passage of time, the court applied a contextual approach, emphasizing the preference for resolving matters on their merits, especially when delay is due to counsel's error.

The action was allowed to proceed, and a timetable was ordered.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence in an action concerning the removal of a boundary tree during construction.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing they constituted a withdrawal of admissions regarding the tree's location, would cause non-compensable prejudice due to an expired limitation period, and included untenable defences.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding the original statements about the tree's location were mis-pleadings rather than intentional admissions, and that the plaintiff would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add paragraphs alleging defamation and bad faith, finding them vexatious and lacking sufficient particulars.

Following a Reference regarding the partition and sale of a jointly owned property, the court determined the costs payable by the parties.

The respondent Banifatemi, who was completely successful on the Reference, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,238.40 payable by the applicant.

The applicant and the respondent Abdollahpour had divided success; the court ordered the respondent Abdollahpour to pay the applicant reduced costs of $2,000.00.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to add several contractors as defendants in an action concerning construction defects in their home.

One proposed defendant, a roofing contractor, opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired, the death of its sole employee caused irredeemable prejudice, and the claim for pure economic loss was not legally tenable.

The court granted the motion, finding that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding when the claim was discoverable, that the death of the employee did not cause non-compensable prejudice, and that the proposed amendments disclosed a legally tenable cause of action.

The defendant university brought a motion to set aside a noting of default in an action commenced by a self-represented plaintiff regarding the handling of complaints under a sexual violence policy.

The plaintiff noted the defendant in default without notice, shortly after the defendant had served a notice of motion to dismiss the claim.

The court granted the motion to set aside the noting of default, finding that the defendant clearly intended to defend the action, moved promptly to set aside the default, and the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice.

The defendants, EBC Inc. and Guarantee Company of North America, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Bolton Mechanical Inc., in a "bond action" that was substantively duplicative of a prior "lien action." In the lien action, security for costs had already been ordered against Bolton due to insufficient assets.

The court dismissed the current motion, finding that the issues added by the bond action were insignificant and that the defendants' delay in bringing the motion was tactical, amounting to a collateral attack on the prior order.

This was a pleadings motion in a wrongful dismissal and libel action where the defendant, Yves Besner, sought to strike portions of the plaintiff's reply.

The defendant argued that the impugned paragraphs, which introduced details about the plaintiff's prior employment with Besner's former company and its bankruptcy, were irrelevant, unresponsive to the statement of defence, and contravened Rules 25.11 and 25.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the allegations were indeed irrelevant to the claims, not responsive to the defence, and improperly attempted to raise new grounds of claim in a reply rather than through an amendment to the statement of claim as required by Rule 25.06(5).

The court also noted that allowing such pleadings would unnecessarily expand the scope and cost of litigation and found them to be scandalous.

The motion to strike was granted.

The defendants, Carleton University and the Steering Committee, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiff, Wilson, Young & Associates Inc., under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed both motions.

Carleton failed to establish "good reason to believe" the plaintiff had insufficient assets.

While the Steering Committee satisfied the condition of multiple proceedings for the same relief, its motion was dismissed due to undue delay and resulting prejudice to the plaintiff, and lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The plaintiffs in two related civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident following a police pursuit brought motions under Rule 30.10 for the production of the complete investigative file of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a non-party.

The SIU had produced parts of its file but opposed producing witness statements without consent and other administrative or derivative documents.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the civilian and police officer witness statements, finding them highly relevant to the issue of liability and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiffs to proceed to trial without them.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the balance of the file, as the plaintiffs failed to establish relevance.

The defendants in three related actions (a tort action, an OPCF underinsured motorist action, and a solicitor's negligence action) brought motions to consolidate the proceedings or have them heard together, and to dispense with the deemed undertaking rule.

The plaintiff opposed the inclusion of the solicitor's negligence action and the waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The court ordered that the three actions be tried together or one after the other, subject to the trial judge's discretion.

However, the court held that the plaintiff's waiver of solicitor-client privilege applied only to the solicitor's negligence action and refused to dispense with the deemed undertaking rule for evidence obtained in that action, protecting the plaintiff's privilege in the tort and OPCF actions.

The plaintiff initiated three actions stemming from a motor vehicle accident: a tort claim, an underinsured motorist claim, and a solicitor's negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The defendants moved to consolidate the actions and for a broad waiver of solicitor-client privilege and the deemed undertaking rule.

The court ordered the actions to be tried together or one after the other, at the discretion of the trial judge.

It denied the broad waiver of solicitor-client privilege and the deemed undertaking rule for information from the solicitor's negligence action for use in the other two actions, emphasizing the importance of privilege.

However, it dispensed with the deemed undertaking rule for information from the tort and OPCF actions for use in the solicitor's negligence action, and between the tort and OPCF actions.

This case conference endorsement addressed the assignment of the proceeding to active case management under Rule 77 and issues concerning examinations for discovery and costs.

The defendants sought to conduct examinations for discovery by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the plaintiff's age and health.

The plaintiff preferred written interrogatories or delayed in-person examinations.

Citing *Arconti v. Smith*, the court ordered that examinations for discovery proceed by videoconference, finding that the benefits of proceeding outweighed the plaintiff's concerns and that further delay was unreasonable.

The court also ordered submissions on costs thrown away from previously cancelled discoveries.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction lien action.

The defendant first sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court granted leave, finding it necessary to achieve procedural fairness as the defendant had posted security to vacate the lien.

The court found good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario based on admissions that it was no longer performing mechanical work.

The plaintiff failed to prove sufficient assets or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $50,000 in security for costs in installments.

The bankrupt, Christopher Sean Reid, a first-time bankrupt with a substantial tax debt to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), sought an unconditional discharge.

The CRA opposed, requesting a conditional discharge based on the bankrupt's failure to keep proper books, non-filing of tax returns, and an alleged ability to pay surplus income.

The court found the bankrupt's testimony regarding his income and financial records lacked credibility and imputed income based on transfers from his father's business to his wife's account.

Balancing the interests of creditors, the bankrupt's rehabilitation, and the integrity of the bankruptcy process, the court determined the bankrupt was not an "honest but unfortunate debtor" and granted a conditional discharge.

The defendants brought a motion to exclude the co-plaintiffs from each other's examination for discovery in an action regarding a denied insurance claim for residential theft.

The defendants argued that credibility was a central issue, relying on the test in Lazar.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the central issue was whether the insurance broker met the standard of care, not the plaintiffs' credibility.

Furthermore, the court held that the agreed-upon discovery plan contained an implied term that the plaintiffs could attend each other's discoveries.

The plaintiff, Tarik Bouragba, brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim and lift a stay of proceedings previously ordered.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to prohibit the plaintiff's father, a non-lawyer, from representing him, and to stay the proceeding due to unpaid costs orders.

The court granted the cross-motion prohibiting the father from acting as legal representative.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings, finding the proposed amendments lacked material facts, were incomprehensible, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court ordered that all outstanding costs awards must be paid before the plaintiffs can bring any further motions.