P. Conrad

The plaintiff general contractor brought a motion to refer its action against a performance bond surety to a Master, to be tried alongside a related construction lien action commenced by a subcontractor.

The defendant surety consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that a joint trial before the Master was the most efficient procedure and would prevent inconsistent findings.

This decision addresses pre-trial motions brought by both Schindler Elevator Corporation and Walsh Construction Company of Canada, Bondfield Construction Company Limited, and Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership (collectively, WBP) concerning the admissibility of substantial affidavit evidence-in-chief tendered for trial.

Both parties raised numerous objections to statements in each other's affidavits, primarily on grounds of unqualified opinion, argument, legal conclusions, hearsay, speculation, and witness competency.

The Master ruled on these objections, striking various paragraphs or portions thereof and admitting others subject to weight, emphasizing that trial evidence must strictly comply with the rules of evidence, unlike evidence on motions or applications.

This decision addresses pre-trial motions brought by both Schindler Elevator Corporation and Walsh Construction Company of Canada, Bondfield Construction Company Limited, and Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership (collectively, WBP) concerning the admissibility of substantial affidavit evidence-in-chief tendered for trial.

Both parties raised numerous objections to statements in each other's affidavits, primarily on grounds of unqualified opinion, argument, legal conclusions, hearsay, speculation, and witness competency.

The Master ruled on these objections, striking various paragraphs or portions thereof and admitting others subject to weight, emphasizing that trial evidence must strictly comply with the rules of evidence, unlike evidence on motions or applications.

In a pre-trial motion regarding the admissibility of trial affidavit evidence, the moving party sought to strike the entirety of an affidavit.

The moving party argued the affidavit contained inadmissible, irrelevant, and opinion evidence without proper foundation.

The Master found that while the affiant had personal knowledge of certain communications, substantial portions of the affidavit lacked foundational knowledge or contained improper legal interpretation and argument.

The Master ordered specific paragraphs struck but admitted the remainder of the affidavit.