Ronna M. Brott

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to produce pre-July 2015 plant data and answer written discovery questions pursuant to a prior consent order.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to compel the moving party to answer written questions.

The court ordered the responding party to produce the plant data, with the moving party to pay 50% of the production costs up to $25,000.

The court also interpreted the prior consent order broadly, directing both parties to answer all refused written discovery questions relating to the amended pleadings.

The defendants and third party brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs, who operated a fitness club before defaulting on their commercial lease and equipment leases.

The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient assets, impecuniosity, or a good chance of success on the merits of their conspiracy and conversion claims.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $80,000 in security for costs for each of the Crunch defendants, the Church defendant, and the third party.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim, add new party defendants, compel further documentary production, and compel additional examinations for discovery in her wrongful dismissal action.

The court found the proposed 85-page amended pleading to be replete with evidence, irrelevant arguments, and inflammatory attacks, violating the rules of pleading.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety as frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The parties were ordered to proceed to mediation and then examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside a consent order that struck her claims and required her to reconstitute them within 30 days.

The plaintiff's former lawyer had failed to inform her of the order or comply with the deadline due to health reasons.

The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, and that the prejudice to the plaintiff in losing her substantive rights outweighed any prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, the order was set aside, and the three related actions were consolidated.

The defendant, ProBuilt Lighting, brought a motion to withdraw an admission in its Statement of Defence that it manufactured a 'wobblelight' alleged to have caused a fire at a hospital.

The defendant discovered during discoveries that it did not exist at the time the light was manufactured.

The court granted the motion, finding that the admission was based on incomplete and erroneous information, there was a triable issue regarding the manufacturer, and the plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion for leave to discontinue the proceeding with prejudice.

The self-represented defendant opposed the motion, arguing that a Master lacked jurisdiction because his pending anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act must be heard by a judge, and that the motion to discontinue constituted an impermissible 'further step' under section 137.1(5).

The Master held that Masters have jurisdiction to hear motions to discontinue under Rule 23.01, and that seeking to end the litigation is not a 'further step' barred by the anti-SLAPP provisions.

Applying the test for discontinuance, the Master granted the motion, finding it the most just and expeditious way to end the dispute, and ordered that the discontinuance bars any subsequent action on the same causes.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs in an action alleging bad faith and negligence by the insurers.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1)(d) as the plaintiffs were corporations with insufficient assets in Ontario.

The burden shifted to the plaintiffs, who failed to prove impecuniosity due to incomplete financial disclosure and undisclosed real estate purchases.

The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of their bad faith claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in installments totaling $65,000.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer 143 questions refused during her cross-examination on an affidavit filed in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment motion was based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiff had refused questions on the basis of relevance and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that questions seeking the legal significance of material facts were not relevant to discoverability.

The court also held that the plaintiff had not waived solicitor-client privilege, as she had not voluntarily put her state of mind or legal advice in issue.

The motion to compel answers was dismissed.

The defendants in a solicitors' negligence action brought a motion to stay the proceeding pending payment of a prior costs order and for security for costs.

The court declined to stay the action over a disputed $240 interest claim.

However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, finding that the corporate plaintiff resided outside Ontario, had insufficient assets in the province, and failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 as security for costs up to the completion of discoveries.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rule 56.01(d).

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices relating to network infrastructure work, while the defendant counterclaimed for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging overcharging.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious, largely due to a significant tax debt to the CRA, and that its claim had a good chance of success.

Consequently, the court held that an order for security for costs would be unjust and dismissed the motion.

The defendant employer in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.

The defendant argued the paragraphs improperly pleaded privileged settlement discussions and without prejudice communications.

The Master partially granted the motion, striking the paragraphs that explicitly detailed settlement offers and negotiations as scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

However, the Master permitted the plaintiff to maintain pleadings alleging bad faith and after-the-fact cause, as these constituted material facts supporting claims for punitive and aggravated damages.

The underlying action was administratively dismissed for delay by the registrar pursuant to Rule 48.14.

The defendants subsequently brought a motion seeking their costs of the action on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 48.14 does not provide for costs upon an administrative dismissal, and that the defendants could have moved for dismissal under Rule 24 if they wished to seek costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing her motor vehicle accident action for delay.

The action was dismissed in January 2014 after the plaintiff failed to set it down for trial by the deadline.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, failed to prove inadvertence, did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants given the passage of nearly ten years since the accident.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence due to their failure to produce documents, comply with a previous court order, and fulfill undertakings given during cross-examinations.

The defendants argued that the requested productions, including text messages and voicemail audio files, were disproportionate and inaccessible.

The Master found that the defendants had breached their disclosure obligations and undertakings, but declined to strike the Statement of Defence immediately.

Instead, the Master ordered the defendants to comply within 90 days, failing which the plaintiff could move again to strike the pleading.

The plaintiff air freight company brought a motion under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the defendant sales agents to pay 732,376.72 EUR into court.

The plaintiff argued the funds represented unpaid cargo sales revenues.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a legal right to a specific, readily identifiable fund, as the defendants deposited all monies into a general corporate account without segregation.

The court concluded the plaintiff's claim was essentially for damages and granting the relief would amount to execution before judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to examine a customer relations coordinator of the defendant tour operator under Rule 39.03(1) in advance of a pending summary judgment motion.

The underlying action involves a slip and fall at a resort in Cuba.

The plaintiff sought to examine the witness regarding the corporate relationship between the various defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding the threshold for such an examination is low and the plaintiff established the witness had relevant information that was more than a fishing expedition.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to produce English-language translations of German-language documents listed in its Affidavit of Documents prior to examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued there was no obligation to translate documents produced on discovery.

The court held that, by analogy to the rules regarding interpreters at oral examinations and the general principle of proportionality, the producing party has an obligation to provide translations of relevant foreign-language documents at the discovery stage so the opposing party can understand the case it has to meet.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce translations of the key German-language emails at its own expense.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action for delay, failure to appoint counsel, and failure to comply with an interlocutory order.

The action had been struck from the trial list in 2012, and the plaintiff's former counsel had removed themselves from the record shortly after.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer real prejudice due to the faded memory of their key investigator.

The motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 was granted.

Formerly convicted individuals brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal under Rule 48 after their civil actions for malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction had been dismissed for delay.

The court applied the four-factor framework from Reid v Dow Corning Corp, examining explanation for litigation delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay adequately explained, largely attributable to document production issues and changes in counsel, and concluded that counsel’s failure to diarize the set-down date constituted inadvertence rather than deliberate delay.

The defendants failed to establish actual prejudice, despite the age of the underlying events.

Applying a contextual approach and considering amendments to Rule 48.14, the court held that justice required permitting the plaintiffs to proceed.

The moving defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to add a counterclaim, crossclaim, and a third party claim in a mortgage enforcement action brought by trustees for syndicated mortgage investors.

The court held that several proposed amendments attempted to withdraw admissions deemed under a Request to Admit, which could not be done indirectly through amended pleadings.

The court further found that proposed claims for an accounting and set-off were not proper defences to the mortgage claim.

The proposed third party claim relating to an alleged improvident sale of a separate property was unrelated to the main mortgage dispute and appeared designed to delay the proceedings.

Leave to amend the defence and counterclaim and to commence the third party claim was dismissed, but leave to add the crossclaim was granted on an unopposed basis.