R.C. Harason

The court issued an addendum to a previous endorsement to clarify that the dismissal of a motion to quash an appeal included the issues of re-attendance for discovery and further examinations.

The court also dismissed a motion to expunge a costs outline, holding that non-compliance with Rule 57.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not fatal where there is no prejudice and procedural and substantive justice can still be accomplished.

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal of a motion judge's order.

The motion judge had denied the defendant leave to bring a motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals, and permission to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiff argued the order was interlocutory and therefore could not be appealed under s. 71(3) of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the denial of leave to amend the statement of defence effectively barred the defendant from raising substantive defences, rendering the order final rather than interlocutory.

The plaintiff corporation commenced an action while dissolved.

The defendants moved for security for costs, and the Master dismissed the action as a nullity because the plaintiff was dissolved when the action was commenced, despite the plaintiff obtaining Articles of Revival before the Master rendered his decision.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that under s. 241(5) of the Business Corporations Act, the revival deemed the corporation to have the right to bring the action as though it had not been dissolved.

The appeal was allowed and the dismissal set aside, though costs were awarded against the successful appellant due to its solicitors' delay in obtaining the revival.