3 total
Court orders mediation to proceed within five months, rejecting defence counsel's proposed 17-month delay.
The plaintiff sought a case conference after the defendant's counsel delayed scheduling a mediation, proposing a date in February 2022.
The court found this delay unacceptable, citing the Supreme Court's direction in Hryniak v. Mauldin to move cases forward in a timely manner.
The court emphasized the importance of mediation in the civil justice system and ordered the parties to hold a mediation before November 30, 2021, along with setting deadlines for updated medical reports and defence medical examinations.
Fraud pleadings require full particulars without affidavit evidence from the requesting party.
The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motion to compel answers to a demand for particulars in an action alleging fraud and misrepresentation.
The motion had been dismissed because the defendants did not file an affidavit stating that the requested particulars were necessary to plead.
The court held that under Rule 25.06(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, full particulars are mandatory where fraud is alleged and affidavit evidence from the moving party is not required to obtain them.
The court further held that the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and production of extensive documentation did not sufficiently identify the specific fraudulent acts alleged.
The appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs were ordered to provide detailed particulars of each alleged fraud.
Multiple requests to admit not abusive absent extreme or oppressive circumstances.
The defendants brought a motion seeking to strike numerous requests to admit served by the plaintiff and to prohibit the plaintiff from serving further requests, alleging abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent the limits on oral discovery under Rule 31.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court considered Rule 51 governing requests to admit and the jurisprudence addressing excessive or abusive use of such requests.
While some requests were imperfectly drafted, the court held that most were relevant and that the Rules impose no numerical limit on requests to admit so long as they are served more than 20 days before trial.
The circumstances did not approach the extreme situations in prior cases where restrictions were imposed.
The motion was dismissed and the defendants were expected to respond to the outstanding requests.
