P.E. Du Vernet

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs regarding an industrial condominium unit.

The plaintiffs had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and took interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, leading to a dispute over who breached the agreement.

The court found that while the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, they established a triable issue regarding their claim for specific performance.

The court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPL but imposed strict terms requiring the plaintiffs to pay the full purchase price into court and pay all outstanding interim occupancy rent.

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.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a dispute over compliance with a previous court order for the production of minutes of settlement.

Schindler Elevator Corporation argued that the defendants (WBP) had excessively redacted the minutes beyond what was permitted, specifically regarding references to items in an exhibit.

The court found that WBP's additional redactions were not justified and went beyond the original order.

It was determined that knowing the specific items to which settlement compensation was allocated was crucial for Schindler to prepare for trial and assess potential double-recovery.

The court ordered WBP to produce a further version of the minutes of settlement, removing the impugned redactions while maintaining the confidentiality of specific settlement and allocation amounts.

The plaintiff, Schindler Elevator Corporation, moved for the production of fully unredacted minutes of settlement between the defendants (WBP) and a third party (Yuanda).

WBP had produced a partially redacted version, claiming settlement privilege over the financial terms.

The court found that while the specific settlement amounts should remain privileged, other redacted information relevant to the apportionment of delay and quantification of damages must be disclosed to ensure procedural fairness at the upcoming trial.

The court ordered WBP to produce a further version of the minutes with only the specific settlement amounts and payment dates redacted.