R. Antoniuk

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative and to require a re-attendance.

The underlying action involves a slip and fall at the defendant's health club.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding post-accident communications about anti-slip material and inspection policies, finding them relevant to the pleadings.

The court also ordered the defendant to re-attend for a virtual examination for up to two hours to answer questions arising from undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident case moved to amend their statement of claim to add three new defendants after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover their involvement within the limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that there were issues of credibility and fact regarding when the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the claims, which warranted a trial.

The proposed defendants were granted leave to plead a limitation defence.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, occupier's liability, and breach of the Liquor Licence Act after the plaintiff suffered a severe spinal injury in a mosh pit at a heavy metal concert.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that the injury was reasonably foreseeable or that the defendants breached the standard of care, noting that security guards were present and actively monitoring the crowd.

The court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an order requiring the defendant private investigation firm to produce a surveillance report and video.

The defendant had been hired by the plaintiff's former spouse during matrimonial proceedings to conduct surveillance on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of privacy and sought production of the report.

The defendant claimed the report was protected by litigation privilege and common law case-by-case privilege.

The court held that litigation privilege from the spent matrimonial proceedings did not apply to this unrelated civil action.

The court also applied the Wigmore criteria and found that the defendant failed to establish a common law privilege.

The motion for production was granted.