Court File and Parties
CITATION: McCarthy-Oppedisano v. Muter, 2017 ONSC 656
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-124844
DATE: 20170126
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: TARA MCCARTHY-OPPEDISANO, Plaintiff
AND:
MARY MUTER, Defendant
BEFORE: Justice M.L. Edwards
COUNSEL: Mr. Cameron R.B. Fiske, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. Mikel C. Pearce, Counsel for the Defendant
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This matter came before me on December 14, 2016 when the parties appeared in Assignment Court in Newmarket.
[2] The statement of claim in this matter was issued on December 3, 2015. A defence was filed on March 3, 2016, with a reply being filed by the Plaintiff on March 11, 2016.
[3] On September 14, 2016, Master Muir made an order on consent that adopted a litigation timetable that, amongst other things, required examinations for discovery to be completed by December 31, 2016.
[4] The Plaintiff’s statement of claim seeks general damages for slander in the amount of $500,000, as well as aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.
[5] The Defendant has brought a motion to strike the Plaintiff’s statement of claim under the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015, S.O. 2015 C.23. This legislation is commonly referred to as “Anti-SLAAP” legislation. The motion is scheduled to be heard on July 7, 2017. The motion has been set for four hours and, as such, is a long motion to which additional resources have been allocated. In order to ensure that the motion proceeds on July 7, 2017, a timetable is required. The parties cannot agree on that timetable.
[6] When counsel appeared before me on December 14, 2016, I had invited them to provide me with written submissions with respect to the proposed timetable if they could not agree upon one. This endorsement addresses such timetable.
[7] One of the issues that has arisen with respect to the timetabling of this matter is the fact that the Defendant did not attend her examination for discovery that had been scheduled for December 12 and 19, 2016. The Plaintiff did attend her examination for discovery on December 12, 2016. It would appear that the non-attendance of the Defendant on her examination for discovery may have had medical justification. The fact remains, however, that Master Muir did make an order which required examinations for discovery to be completed by December 31, 2016. The fact that the Defendant could not be examined for discovery due to medical reasons, in my view does not preclude the Plaintiff from conducting an examination for discovery even with the pending Anti-SLAAP motion scheduled for July 7, 2017.
[8] The Defendant has filed her materials with respect to the Anti-SLAAP motion. It would appear that the Plaintiff has not yet filed her materials and the Defence takes the position, in written submissions filed by Mr. Pearce, that nothing in relation to the Anti-SLAAP motion should be scheduled until the Plaintiff has delivered her responding materials.
[9] I take into account the concerns of the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not filed her materials for the Anti-SLAAP motion. I also take into account the concerns of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has not complied with the order of Master Muir with respect to the completion of her examination for discovery prior to December 31, 2016. With these issues in mind, I am fixing the following timetable:
Plaintiff to deliver responding materials regarding the Anti-SLAAP motion by February 28, 2017;
the examination for discovery for the Defendant to be completed on or before April 15, 2017;
the cross-examination of the parties regarding the Anti-SLAAP motion to be completed by May 15, 2017;
any undertakings and refusals motions to be completed by June 15, 2017;
factum of the Defendant regarding the Anti-SLAAP motion to be delivered by June 23, 2017;
factum of the Plaintiff regarding the Anti-SLAAP motion to be delivered by June 30, 2017; and
motion to be heard on July 7, 2017.
[10] The parties may very well consider the advisability of agreeing that the cross-examination of the Defendant would stand in the place of a discovery of the Defendant. If the parties cannot agree on that approach, then the timetable that I have fixed shall apply.
Justice M.L. Edwards
Date: January 26, 2017