3 total
Motion for leave to extend time for late handwriting expert report dismissed by case management judge.
The defendant sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion extending the time to serve a responding handwriting expert report, just weeks before trial.
The defendant had repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to retain an expert until after the original documents were allegedly lost.
The court dismissed the motion for leave, holding that any request to admit the late report or address spoliation must be brought de novo before the trial judge under Rule 53.08, as further case management intervention would risk treading on the trial judge's role.
Oppression application dismissed as out of time.
The applicants sought oppression relief arising from a 2005 plan of arrangement converting a corporation into an income trust structure and a 2009 restructuring of participating notes that later impeded redemption of preference shares.
The respondents raised a preliminary limitations defence under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court held that the alleged damage occurred when the impugned corporate steps were taken, and that the applicants knew or ought to have known the material facts underlying the oppression claim well before the two-year period preceding commencement of the application.
The application was therefore dismissed as statute-barred.
Court refuses to set aside order allowing enforcement of long‑standing judgment.
The defendant brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside portions of an order granting the plaintiff leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale and notices of garnishment to enforce a judgment more than six years old.
The order had been obtained without notice.
The court held that the motions judge had discretion to proceed without notice given concerns that notice could allow the judgment debtor to rearrange assets.
Applying the test for leave under Rules 60.07(2) and 60.08(2), the court found the judgment creditor adequately explained the delay in enforcement and had not waived rights under the judgment.
The defendant failed to demonstrate detrimental reliance arising from the delay.
The motion to set aside the order was dismissed and the enforcement mechanisms remained in force.
