Monica Caceres

Following a case conference, the judge released an endorsement.

Counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant subsequently wrote to the court to correct certain dates regarding the delivery of the trial record, the fixing of pretrial and trial dates, and the service of expert reports and affidavits of documents.

The judge issued this endorsement to correct the dates and noted that documentation relied on by the plaintiff's experts should have been produced upon request.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings, the defendant sought costs.

The court reviewed the costs claimed by the defendant, including partial indemnity fees and disbursements for travel.

Finding the rates and time spent reasonable, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $4,127.64.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in an action for lost profits arising from the defendant's refusal to allow the plaintiff to bid on or be awarded two electrical contracting projects.

The defendant opposed certain amendments, arguing they asserted a new cause of action after the expiry of a limitation period.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments merely provided additional facts and particulars arising out of the same factual matrix originally pleaded, and did not assert a new cause of action.

The defendant, Hydro One, brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff, which was in receivership.

The court applied the three-step test under Rule 56(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario but successfully established that it was impecunious and unable to raise funds to post security.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the defendant's alleged failure to process energy conservation program applications was not devoid of merit.

Concluding that an order for security for costs would unjustly end the litigation, the court dismissed the motion.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondents argued the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal that also alleged Code violations and sought related remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action, which remained active, sought a remedy under s. 46.1 for the alleged Code infringement.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application as barred by s. 34(11).