3 total
The court granted the defendants leave to amend their statement of defence, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.
The court granted the defendants leave to amend their Amended Statement of Defence, finding that the proposed amendments—alleging an oral agreement regarding a book of business and constructive dismissal—would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.
The decision reviews the legal test for amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed unless they cause injustice not compensable by costs or adjournment, are not tenable at law, or lack sufficient particulars.
The court found that the delay in seeking the amendments was explained and did not result in actual prejudice to the plaintiff, and that the amendments were based on facts already known to the parties.
The court ordered defendants to provide detailed descriptions of documents claimed as privileged, rejecting boilerplate Schedule B language.
On the first day of trial, the Plaintiff brought a motion seeking the production of redacted portions of an email and a non-disclosed attachment, which the Defendants claimed were protected by solicitor-client privilege.
The court found that the Defendants' use of boilerplate language for Schedule "B" in their affidavits of documents did not comply with Rule 30.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it failed to provide sufficient information to challenge the privilege claim.
The court ordered the Defendants to immediately provide a detailed description of the documents, including their nature, sender, receiver, and the specific grounds for the claimed privilege, to enable the Plaintiff to properly assess and potentially challenge the privilege or argue implied waiver.
Motion to implement Pierringer agreement granted with terms protecting the non-settling defendant's procedural and discovery rights.
The plaintiffs and two of the three defendants in a multi-party aviation negligence action entered into a Pierringer agreement.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to implement the agreement, seeking to amend their claim to proceed only against the non-settling defendant (NAV Canada) for its proportionate share of fault, and to dismiss all crossclaims and third-party claims.
NAV Canada did not oppose the dismissal but sought terms to preserve its discovery rights against the settling defendants.
The court held it had jurisdiction to dismiss the crossclaims as they would become untenable once the plaintiffs limited their claim.
The court granted the motion on terms designed to protect NAV Canada's procedural rights, including orders for the preservation of evidence and the ability to seek discovery from the settling defendants if necessary.
