CITATION: TSI International Group Inc. v. Formosa et al., 2016 ONSC 5412
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-0694-00
DATE: 2016 08 26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TSI International Inc.
Plaintiff
Robert Taylor and Tatha Swann for the Plaintiff
- and -
John Formosa, Steffen Nielsen, iFarmLocal Inc., Richard Taylor, Great Life Group Inc. and John Masih, carrying on business as MSM Group
Defendants
Tim Duncan for the Defendants
HEARD: August 25th, 2016.
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
LeMay J.
[1] This is a further case management endorsement in this matter, addressing a number of issues between the parties. The history of this matter is set out in a number of decisions issued by both myself and Ricchetti J.
[2] One of those decisions was a motion on pleadings, which I decided on June 8th, 2016. The Defendants have appealed that decision, and an appeal hearing has not been set at this time. As a result, pleadings are not likely to close in this matter for some time.
[3] However, there are a number of issues that can be addressed at this time, and I will address each of them.
The Terms of the June 8th, 2016 Order
[4] The parties have been unable to settle the terms of the June 8th, 2016 Order. As a result, the Appeal of that Order cannot be perfected until such time as I settle the terms of the Order.
[5] As part of the materials that I received for this appearance, Mr. Taylor helpfully provided me with an Affidavit of correspondence and documents that are relevant. During the course of yesterday’s appearance, I asked Mr. Duncan whether there were any documents that were missing from these materials. He advised that there were two letters that were missing, including one that had been sent on August 23rd, 2016. As a result, I directed Mr. Duncan to file copies of both of those letters with my judicial assistant as soon as possible.
[6] In addition, the terms of the Order need to be settled. This will be done by way of written submissions, on the following basis:
(a) The parties will arrange for the filing of a black-line Order showing the places where they disagree over its terms. This is to be completed by September 1, 2016.
(b) The parties will have the option of filing written submissions on the contents of the Order, again by September 1st, 2016. There will be no reply submissions.
(c) The parties are to electronically file all submissions, and they are to include a word copy of their proposed Orders.
[7] I will endeavor to provide the parties with a decision on the Order, along with a signed Order, by September 6th, 2016. I understand that the Court of Appeal has advised Mr. Duncan that his appeal must be perfected by September 7th, 2016. I have no jurisdiction to extend this deadline, but I note that Mr. Taylor, on behalf of the Defendants, has agreed to a two week extension to this deadline.
Timetable Issues
[8] Given that pleadings have not yet closed, a timetable for discovery cannot be set yet. However, some steps can be taken in terms of a timetable. Specifically, I am directing as follows:
(a) If the Court of Appeal allows the Defendants appeal and reinstates their pleading, then the Plaintiff will have sixty (60) days from the date of the Court of Appeal’s decision to serve and file its reply.
(b) If the Court of Appeal dismisses the Defendants appeal, then the Defendants will have sixty (60) days from the date of the Court of Appeals decision to serve and file their amended Statement of Defence. The usual rules will then apply to the Reply.
[9] The parties have agreed that the Plaintiff’s devices in the possession of Delloite will be returned to the Plaintiff, and I so Order.
The Document Protocol
[10] As a result of my June 30th, 2016 decision in this matter, the parties experts were expected to agree on a protocol for the inspection and management of the documents that were imaged as a result of the Order of Ricchetti J. The parties have been unable to agree on this protocol.
[11] As part of the materials that the parties have already filed, I have detailed letters from each side about what should (and should not) be in the protocol. I am prepared to permit the parties to file additional submissions on this issue by September 1st, 2016. If a party wishes to rely on the letters I have already received, they may do so.
[12] Any reply submissions are to be filed by September 8th, 2016, and are strictly limited to replying to issues raised in the additional submissions on September 1st, 2016.
June 30th, 2016 Decision
[13] The parties have been unable to agree on the terms of the Order flowing from my June 30th, 2016 decision. As a result, the parties are to file both a black-lined Order showing where their differences are, as well as submissions on their positions according to the following timetable:
(a) The Plaintiff’s proposed Order, along with any supporting comments, are to be given to the Defendants (with a copy to me) on September 8th, 2016.
(b) The Defendants’ proposed Order, along with any supporting comments, is to be given to the Plaintiff (with a copy to me) on September 15th, 2016.
(c) The Plaintiff’s reply comments to the Defendant’s order are due on September 22nd, 2016.
[14] I encourage the parties to agree on the terms of this Order.
Other Issues
[15] The Plaintiff is seeking costs of its motion to obtain its devices back. The Defendants resist this request. As a result, costs submissions on this issue are necessary, and I direct the following:
(a) The Plaintiff is to provide its costs submissions on this issue by September 8th, 2015
(b) The Defendants are to provide their costs submissions on this issue by September 22nd, 2015.
(c) The Plaintiff is to provide any reply submissions by September 29th, 2015.
[16] Finally, the parties are scheduled to appear before me for two hours on October 21st, 2016. The purpose of this appearance is to address any outstanding issues, including the question of the protocol and confidentiality of documents if such questions cannot be resolved.
LeMay J.
Released: August 26th, 2016
CITATION: TSI International Group Inc. v. Formosa et al., 2016 ONSC 5412
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-0694-00
DATE: 2016 08 26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TSI International Inc.
Plaintiff
- and -
John Formosa, Steffen Nielsen, iFarmLocal Inc., Richard Taylor, Great Life Group Inc. and John Masih, carrying on business as MSM Group
Defendants
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
LeMay J.
Released: August 26th, 2016