Paul Lomic

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.06 for a further and better affidavit of documents, seeking financial, operational, and accounting records from the defendants.

The underlying action involved claims of partnership dissolution, breach of contract, and intellectual property infringement.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the documents were irrelevant, not proven to exist, and disproportionate to produce at this stage.

The court found the requested documents were relevant to both liability and damages, and that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of their existence.

The court rejected the defendants' proportionality arguments, noting they failed to provide evidence of undue burden, and granted the motion with costs.

The court heard three procedural motions in a $100 million commercial dispute involving allegations of breach of contract and breach of confidence.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiffs to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery, which the court largely granted, ordering the plaintiffs to provide development timelines and material facts supporting their group enterprise claims.

The plaintiffs brought two motions: one to strike the defendants' response to a request to admit an incomplete affidavit, and another to compel updated answers regarding expert witnesses.

The court dismissed both of the plaintiffs' motions, noting the defendants' ongoing obligation to correct discovery answers under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following the dismissal of a motion for partial summary judgment in an intellectual property dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful plaintiffs sought elevated costs exceeding $200,000, alleging the motion was unreasonable.

The court held that although the motion was aggressive, it was not unreasonable and costs should therefore be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

After reviewing hourly rates, fees, and disbursements under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, several claimed amounts were reduced, including photocopying, travel expenses, and expert-related disbursements.

The court fixed total costs at $137,382 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against three of the four corporate defendants, arguing they were not parties to the relevant agreements and that the 'group enterprise' doctrine does not exist in Canadian law.

The court found that the 'group enterprise' concept exists as a carefully limited exception to the corporate veil principle.

Given the complex evidence of inter-corporate connections and the equitable breach of confidence claims, the court concluded there were genuine issues requiring trial and declined to use its enhanced fact-finding powers.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.