R. Huang

During a trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the plaintiff sought to introduce a 'With Prejudice' settlement offer it had previously served on the defendant.

The defendant objected to its admission on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court applied the three-part test for settlement privilege and held that the label 'With Prejudice' does not change the character of a communication made in furtherance of settlement.

The court ruled the offer was privileged and inadmissible under Rule 49.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a case management attendance for five related actions arising from aborted real estate transactions, the court addressed three outstanding motions.

The moving party's motion to strike a cross-claim was adjourned sine die to allow the parties to resolve representation issues.

The moving party's motion for further documentary production was deferred, with the court noting that questions regarding additional documents should first be asked at examinations for discovery.

Finally, the responding parties' motion to approve discovery plans was granted, subject to minor amendments and final comments from a non-attending party.

The defendants, Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Firstbrook, Cassie & Anderson Limited, brought motions for leave to amend their statements of defence under Rule 26.01.

The plaintiff opposed several proposed amendments, arguing they improperly pleaded res judicata, issue estoppel, withdrew admissions, and pleaded evidence rather than facts.

The Master granted leave to both defendants to amend their pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff and concluding that the proposed amendments were legally tenable and properly pleaded the necessary elements of the defences.