Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-11-00437115-0000 Date: 2016-09-15 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Rose Elizabeth Gray, Plaintiff – and – David Brathwaite and 1492569 Ontario Inc. and DAAB Ventures Inc. c.o.b. as Chesswood Transmission Driveline Specialists, Defendants

Counsel: Sidney Klotz for the Plaintiff Blair Bowen for the Defendants

Heard: September 14, 2016

Case Conference Endorsement

Diamond J.:

[1] In accordance with paragraph 58 of my Reasons for Decision released on June 24, 2016, the parties participated in a telephone case conference with me today with a view to addressing various concerns arising from a Notice of Motion recently served by the plaintiff. That motion is currently scheduled to proceed before a Master on September 19, 2016 for a two hour hearing.

[2] The relief sought in the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion is extensive, and appears to be a “laundry list” of orders ranging from the funding of a joint appraisal to permitting the plaintiff access to properties owned by the defendants.

[3] When I granted the plaintiff leave to amend paragraphs 1(e.2), 5, 10 and 15 of her draft pleading, I ordered that both parties were entitled to proceed with further examinations for discovery, with the scope of those examinations being restricted to the said new amendments.

[4] The defendants take the position that most, if not all, of the relief sought by the plaintiff on her pending motion requires leave pursuant to Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as that relief does not arise from the new amendments.

[5] Without commenting upon the merits of the defendants’ position, in my view a two hour hearing is an unrealistic allocation of time before a Master to hear the plaintiff’s motion as currently framed. In reviewing the Notice of Motion, I find that there are at least some heads of relief which do not require leave of the Court.

[6] The plaintiff submits that the defendants have failed to provide a sufficient response to her Demand for Particulars (which was served after receipt of the defendants’ Amended Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated July 20, 2016). I see no reason why a motion seeking further particulars pursuant to Rule 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be pursued at this stage.

[7] As well, the exchange of amended pleadings could give rise to additional documentary disclosure obligations if the amendments expand the scope of the issues previously joined in the proceeding.

[8] Accordingly, and on consent of the parties, in the absence of an agreement between the parties beforehand, the scope of the plaintiff’s motion currently returnable on September 19, 2016 shall be limited to the relief set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 5(c), 8, 11 and 12 (specifically relating to any alleged outstanding undertakings, and not refusals) in the Notice of Motion.

[9] This order is made without prejudice to the parties’ respective rights and interests relating to the balance of the relief sought in the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, which relief may or may not require leave of the Court under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[10] Once again, pursuant to Rule 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a case conference may be held in advance of the trial of this action (now currently scheduled to proceed before me on January 16, 2017) to address further scheduling or related issues.

Diamond J. Released: September 15, 2016