Paula J. Thomas

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals made by The Personal Insurance Company, a statutory third party, regarding its denial of coverage for the defendant Jouvaine M. Stennett.

The Personal argued that coverage issues are distinct from liability proceedings and that a statutory third party is not required to disclose information about its coverage position during discovery.

The court held that while coverage issues are distinct from liability, the information sought is relevant to issues engaged in the litigation and necessary for efficient case management.

The court ordered The Personal to provide answers to the undertakings and refusals within 30 days and awarded costs of $5,000 to the plaintiffs.

In a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall in a grocery store parking lot, the defendants brought a motion seeking compliance with outstanding undertakings given by the plaintiffs during examinations for discovery.

Numerous requests and prior directions had been made for the undertakings to be fulfilled, including requests for financial records, medical documentation, and particulars relating to damages and care costs.

The court held that litigants have an ongoing obligation to provide information undertaken at discovery and cannot rely on procedural rules regarding particulars to delay disclosure until shortly before trial.

The court found that many undertakings remained outstanding and that the materials produced did not adequately particularize damages.

An order was granted requiring the plaintiffs to fulfill the undertakings by a specified deadline.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging trespass, conversion, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches after OSPCA agents removed his livestock and laid charges under the OSPCA Act.

The defendants brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge and beliefs about the legality of OSPCA powers and investigative practices.

The court held that questions seeking the plaintiff’s personal legal opinions on contested legal issues were irrelevant where counsel had already articulated the legal positions.

The defendants’ motion was dismissed.

On the plaintiff’s cross‑motion, the court granted leave to amend pleadings and ordered production of certain OSPCA training materials, policies, tariff information, and other information relevant to alleged warrantless entries and potential Charter remedies, while dismissing requests deemed irrelevant.

The moving party sought leave under Rule 60.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue an alias Writ of Seizure and Sale after the original writ expired without renewal.

The underlying judgment, which ordered payment exceeding $119,000 plus costs and interest, remained enforceable for twenty years.

The court considered authorities confirming that leave may be granted to issue an alias writ after expiry where the judgment remains valid.

Exercising its discretion, the court held that denying leave would unjustly deprive the judgment creditor of enforcement of its judgment.

Leave was granted to issue an alias writ effective from the date of issuance, with interest limited to the period before the expiry of the original writ.