M. Van Zandvoort

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit regarding their alleged impecuniosity, which was served six months after the deadline set by a court-ordered timetable.

The court denied leave, finding that plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide a reasonable, good faith explanation for the delay and had ignored the court's explicit direction to research the evidentiary requirements for impecuniosity before drafting the initial materials.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of the defendants’ Statement of Defence that referenced allegations of sexual assault involving a non‑party.

The plaintiffs argued the allegations were irrelevant and scandalous.

The defendants maintained that the timing of the criminal complaint and the civil claim was relevant to the existence of an alleged trust agreement over shares in a corporation operating a retail business.

The court held that the circumstances surrounding the reporting of the alleged assault and the timing of the civil action could be relevant to the credibility of the plaintiffs and the existence of the alleged trust.

Applying Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and guidance from appellate authority, the court found the impugned allegations were not of marginal probative value and did not unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs.