Michael Beeson

The moving party brought an urgent motion for the production of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) under Rule 30.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was referred to in the responding party's affidavits.

The underlying application sought to extinguish a right of first refusal held by the moving party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the APS was not incorporated by reference into the affidavits.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to deny production, concluding the APS was not relevant to the core issue of the application and its disclosure could prejudice the responding party due to commercial sensitivity.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's report and to set it aside.

They had failed to attend the assessment hearing, claiming they misunderstood the purpose of a prior adjournment.

The court found their excuse weak but noted they acted promptly upon learning of the assessment.

Because there was a genuine issue regarding whether the moving parties had actually retained the respondent law firm prior to signing a written retainer, the court set aside the unopposed certificate of assessment and remitted the matter back to the Assessment Officer.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs due to their default.

Following a motion in a simplified procedure action involving a claim for corporate oppression and production of documents, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had largely succeeded on the underlying motion, including obtaining leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act and compelling answers to undertakings and production of financial records.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered complexity, proportionality, success, conduct of the parties, and the time and rates claimed.

The court held that the success on the motion justified an award of costs, but that the conduct alleged did not warrant elevated costs.

Costs were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a simplified procedure action seeking leave to amend the statement of claim to add an oppression claim under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, and to compel answers to undertakings and production of corporate records.

The court held that an oppression claim could be advanced within a Rule 76 simplified action and granted leave to amend the claim.

However, the court limited document production to records relevant to payments, financial statements, bank records, and financing related to the defendant corporation.

Production requests relating to an affiliated corporation were largely refused as irrelevant.

The court also ordered responses to certain discovery undertakings concerning payments to specific individuals and imposed limits on further discovery.