Pierre E. Roger

A corporate plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensive third‑party telephone records, additional documentary disclosure, leave to amend pleadings to add claims arising from additional procurement requests, and extensions to litigation timelines in an action relating to federal procurement contracts.

The court applied Rules 26.01 and 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Limitations Act, 2002.

Leave to amend was partially granted only in relation to claims concerning a later procurement process and to further particularize an existing Charter damages claim, while proposed amendments relating to another procurement and new causes of action were refused as statute‑barred or untenable.

Broad disclosure requests relating to other bidders were rejected as irrelevant and disproportionate, but limited disclosure relating to the termination and re‑issuance of the relevant contract and documents relating to the permitted amendment were ordered.

Third‑party telephone record production was permitted subject to service and a temporary stay allowing the service providers to challenge the order.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion seeking multiple discovery-related orders, including further production of documents, clarification of undertakings and refusals, and a second medical examination.

The court emphasized compliance with Rule 37.10(10) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a refusals and undertakings chart and criticized the moving parties for failing to provide one.

Several document production requests were dismissed as irrelevant or disproportionate, while limited additional disclosure was ordered, including production of an unredacted medical file and updated affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff was also ordered to attend a neuropsychological independent medical examination.

The decision highlights proportionality and procedural compliance in discovery motions.

The defendant brought a motion seeking various forms of interim relief relating to possession and management of an Ottawa taxi plate that was the subject of a long-standing family dispute.

The moving party alleged breaches of a prior order governing rental payments and management of the taxi plate and sought additional orders including possession and other remedies.

The court found that the alleged breaches were disputed and that the existing order provided sufficient protection pending trial.

Leave was granted to amend the statement of defence to add a counterclaim under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the action was placed under case management with a timetable leading to trial.

Most substantive relief sought in the motion was dismissed, while procedural amendments and scheduling directions were granted.

The plaintiff moved to reinstate a professional negligence action that was administratively dismissed for delay in 2007.

The parties had previously agreed to hold the action in abeyance pending the outcome of related tax litigation, but a court order only extended the time for service by six months.

The Master found that the delay was adequately explained by the parties' understanding to adjourn the matter sine die, the missed deadline was due to inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in a complex software copyright and breach of confidence action.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful.

The plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $1,110,000 in security for costs, payable in three installments, to balance the defendants' need for protection with the risk of stifling the litigation.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the contextual factors governing reinstatement of dismissed actions, including promptness of the motion, explanation for delay, inadvertence, abandonment of the claim, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the explanations for litigation delay were weak, the court found evidence that the plaintiff continued to pursue the action through efforts to answer undertakings and had not abandoned the claim.

The defendants’ evidence of prejudice, including alleged fading memories, was found to be vague and insufficient to outweigh the interests of justice in determining the matter on its merits.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside and the action permitted to proceed subject to an expedited timetable.

Following a successful motion setting aside an administrative dismissal and permitting amendments to the statement of claim, the court addressed costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining substantive relief on the underlying motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and applied the Rule 57 factors, emphasizing that defendants opposing administrative dismissal motions may face costs exposure depending on the evidentiary record and circumstances.

The court found the moving party’s request reasonable and rejected arguments that insurer involvement should preclude costs.

Costs were fixed at an all‑inclusive partial indemnity amount of $12,500 payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of the action for delay and to establish a new litigation timetable.

The underlying dispute involved alleged breach of a verbal joint venture agreement relating to software development and claims for accounting, ownership interests, breach of contract, fiduciary duty, defamation, and interference with economic relations.

Applying the Reid factors and the contextual approach outlined in Hamilton (City) v. Svedas Koyanagi Architects Inc. and Vogrin v. Ticknor Estate, the court considered the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the set-down deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice.

Although the evidentiary record explaining delay and inadvertence was weak, the court found the motion was brought sufficiently promptly and that the defendants had not demonstrated actual prejudice.

Balancing the interests of resolving cases on their merits against timely litigation, the court set aside the dismissal and imposed a strict litigation timetable.

The respondents sought costs after the applicants abandoned an application seeking, among other relief, capacity assessments of elderly parents and orders concerning access, guardianship, and financial control.

Under Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a respondent is presumptively entitled to costs when an application is abandoned unless the court orders otherwise.

The court held that the applicants had some justification for commencing the proceeding, given concerns about potential undue influence over the parents and the absence of independent verification of their wishes.

The application disclosed a bona fide cause of action that was neither frivolous nor vexatious, and it was discontinued shortly after independent confirmation of the parents’ intentions was provided.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to depart from the usual rule and permitted the abandonment without costs, with no costs awarded for the motion itself.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal for delay and sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a negligence and breach of contract action arising from engineering services related to sewer system upgrades.

The court applied the contextual approach governing the setting aside of administrative dismissals, considering factors such as the explanation for delay, prejudice, and the intention to proceed with the action.

The court accepted that the failure to meet the set-down deadline resulted from inadvertence by counsel and that the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for litigation delays in a complex, document-heavy matter.

The plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of a limitation period.

Leave to amend was largely granted as the amendments primarily particularized existing claims, though certain allegations relating to an earlier environmental study report constituted a potential new cause of action and were allowed subject to the defendant’s right to raise a limitation defence.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to produce unredacted clinical notes and records of the plaintiff’s treating psychologist.

The plaintiff had produced the records with redactions relating to discussions about the litigation, mediation, and communications with counsel.

The court reviewed the unredacted notes and considered the governing principles for redaction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the requirement that relevant documents be produced in full subject to limited exceptions.

The court held that the redacted portions were irrelevant to the issues in the action and that disclosure would only embarrass or prejudice the plaintiff without assisting in resolving the dispute.

The motion to compel production was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion seeking security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in an action arising from a construction subcontract dispute.

The plaintiff corporation claimed damages for breach of contract after allegedly being terminated and not paid for work performed, while the defendant alleged defective work and asserted significant back-charges and set-off.

The court held that although the plaintiff asserted impecuniosity, the evidentiary record did not establish true impecuniosity because it failed to address potential financial resources of its principal and other potential beneficiaries of the litigation.

The court also found that the merits of the claim appeared difficult and that the interests of justice favoured protecting the defendant from unrecoverable costs.

Security for costs was therefore ordered in staged payments totaling $33,000.

The defendant corporation brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to re-attend for examination for discovery to complete discovery and follow up on undertakings.

The court reviewed the discovery history, including prior undertakings, a resolved motion to compel answers, and cross-examinations conducted in the context of a summary judgment motion.

Applying proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Senechal, the court held that further oral discovery was unnecessary and would risk delaying pre-trial and trial scheduling.

However, the court permitted limited written follow-up questions relating to specific undertakings and refusals.

The motion for additional oral discovery was dismissed with conditions allowing narrowly tailored written follow-up questions.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to advance the litigation diligently and that the action was a nullity due to the corporate plaintiff’s bankruptcy.

The court applied the two‑part test requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and the absence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendants.

Although the delay was significant, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ explanation relating to related litigation, financial constraints, and a change of counsel, and found insufficient prejudice to the defendants.

The action was permitted to proceed subject to a strict timetable, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of the status hearing.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why his oppression remedy action under the Ontario Business Corporations Act should not be dismissed for delay.

The court applied the established two-part test requiring an acceptable explanation for delay and absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had taken multiple steps to advance the litigation, including motions, mediation, documentary disclosure, and the addition of a new defendant.

The defendants provided no evidence of prejudice.

The court held the plaintiff met the onus to show cause and permitted the action to proceed with a detailed litigation timetable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing an action as abandoned under Rule 76.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the contextual test including the factors identified in Reid v. Dow Corning Corp to determine whether the dismissal should be set aside.

The moving party failed to provide adequate evidence explaining significant delays in bringing the motion and did not sufficiently address potential prejudice to the defendant, particularly given the age of the underlying incident and the procedural history of the matter.

The court found that the explanations provided, including issues relating to counsel’s suspension and communication difficulties, were insufficient.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, an American corporation with no assets in Ontario.

The parties were involved in a contractual dispute over a plant relocation contract.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that it had sufficient assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction or that it was impecunious.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $5,000 into court as a partial payment of security for costs, with the issue of any additional amount to be decided by the referee.

The defendant brought a motion seeking further and better disclosure from the plaintiff, directions regarding a prior production order, and leave to amend its defence and counterclaim to include a defamation claim against the plaintiff and an additional party.

The plaintiff brought a competing motion seeking to strike the defence for non-compliance with a previous order, additional production including distribution agreements and accounting authorizations, and summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

The court ordered additional disclosure from the plaintiff subject to confidentiality but declined to require certain disproportionate productions, including telephone and email purchase requests.

Requests by the plaintiff for distribution agreements and direct communication with the defendant’s accountants were dismissed as unnecessary or premature.

Leave to amend the defence and counterclaim was granted and the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was dismissed without prejudice pending completion of disclosure and discoveries.

The plaintiff moved to change the place of trial from Ottawa to Kingston in an action concerning an unpaid promissory note and alleged negligent legal services relating to property in Kingston.

Although the events, damages, and subject-matter of the dispute were located in the Kingston area, the proceeding had been commenced and substantially advanced in Ottawa, including discoveries and mediation.

Applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court weighed the enumerated factors governing venue transfer and emphasized that the moving party bears the burden of showing that a transfer is desirable in the interests of justice.

The court found that most convenience and cost considerations were neutral or favoured maintaining the existing venue, particularly given the late stage of the request and the plaintiff’s lack of a compelling explanation for the change.

The motion to transfer the trial venue was therefore dismissed.

Following a motion concerning amendments to a statement of claim and the scope of discovery, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The moving party had largely succeeded in obtaining amendments and discovery relief, although some proposed amendments were refused.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the result but reflect the partially divided outcome.

The court reduced the moving party’s claimed fees to remove work unrelated to the motion and applied a further percentage reduction to account for unsuccessful portions of the amendments.

Partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements were awarded to the moving party.