3 total
The court dismissed the plaintiff's personal injury action for delay due to his persistent failure to produce documents and answer undertakings.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the time to set an action down for trial.
The action, commenced in 2017 for injuries allegedly sustained when struck by falling concrete, had not been set down for trial by the eighth anniversary of commencement.
The court dismissed the motion and the action for delay, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.
The primary cause of delay was the plaintiff's failure to produce relevant documents and answer outstanding undertakings.
Despite multiple accommodations from the defendants and efforts by current counsel to obtain compliance, the plaintiff failed to cooperate adequately or demonstrate an intention to pursue the action.
The court recognized and enforced foreign arbitral awards, rejecting the respondent's claims of procedural unfairness and applying issue estoppel.
The applicant, Prospector PTE.
Ltd., sought recognition and enforcement of two foreign arbitral awards rendered by an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal in the United Kingdom against the respondent, CGX Energy Inc. CGX Energy Inc. opposed enforcement, arguing procedural unfairness because it was allegedly denied the opportunity to fully present its case regarding its counterclaim.
The court found that CGX Energy Inc. failed to meet the narrow test for procedural unfairness required to refuse enforcement under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, and the UNCITRAL Model Law.
The court also applied issue estoppel, noting that the same procedural unfairness argument had already been dismissed by the UK High Court.
The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.
Adjuster log notes ordered produced subject to redactions; litigation privilege attached upon denial of catastrophic impairment.
The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits and filed a motion for the production of the respondent's adjuster log notes from the date of the OCF-1 to the date of the application to the Tribunal.
The respondent argued that notes created after the initial FSCO application were protected by litigation privilege.
The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the log notes subject to redactions for relevance, reserves, and privilege, noting that litigation privilege attached to the issue of catastrophic impairment only upon its denial on December 5, 2016.
