Michael G. Emery

The defendant brought a motion to stay the action or temporarily suspend a prior production order pending a summary judgment motion.

The defendant argued that compliance with the order would require disclosure of competitively sensitive information regarding its digital printing business to the plaintiff.

The court applied the two‑part test for a stay of proceedings, requiring proof that continuation of the proceeding would cause injustice to the defendant and that a stay would not cause injustice to the plaintiff.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish either branch of the test, noting the earlier production order had not been appealed and that the information could likely be obtained through cross‑examination on the summary judgment record.

The motion to stay the proceedings or suspend the production order was dismissed.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for alleged non-compliance with a prior disclosure order or, alternatively, for further production, particulars, and additional cross-examinations.

The plaintiff resisted the motion and sought an updated discovery plan.

The court held that the plaintiff had complied with the earlier order requiring production of profit and loss statements and declined to order further disclosure, additional affidavits of documents, or further cross-examinations.

Emphasizing the excessive interlocutory litigation in the matter, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to control its process, refused further procedural skirmishes without leave, and directed the parties toward completing discoveries and trial management.

Following the withdrawal of a complex summary judgment motion brought by several defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs consequences.

The defendants argued that no costs should be ordered or that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, relying in part on recent appellate guidance regarding summary judgment motions.

The court held that the ordinary rule applies: when a motion is withdrawn, the responding party is generally entitled to costs.

Given the significant effort required to respond to the motion, including multiple affidavits and cross-examinations, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff was awarded $17,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable within 30 days.

Following an unsuccessful summary judgment motion brought by third parties against defendants on a third party claim, the defendants sought costs.

The court held that the defendants were successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

One responding party argued that another third party should bear any costs payable because it had refused to make admissions of fact that would have permitted it to exit the action.

The court found the refusal to provide admissions unreasonable but questioned its jurisdiction to order one party to pay another party’s motion costs.

Costs were fixed against both responding parties in specified amounts payable within 30 days.

Third parties brought motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim arising from alleged groundwater contamination caused by a leaking pesticide storage tank.

The moving parties argued they had no responsibility for maintenance of the tank or liability for any leak.

The responding defendants argued that liability among the supplier, distributor, and related agents depended on unresolved contractual relationships and factual findings.

The court held that discovery had not yet occurred and that the evidentiary record was incomplete.

Given the need to assess contractual arrangements and credibility, the court found the motion premature and concluded the issues required a full trial.