COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-591, CV-19-778SR and SC-18-1663 DATE: 2020-04-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ERICA CHOVAZ and GEOFF CHOVAZ - and – 7120761 CANADA INC., DANIEL ST. JEAN and LAUREL SIMMONS
Counsel: Alexandria Nowak, Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Defendants by Separate Claim Paul Fauteux, Counsel for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Separate Claim
HEARD: December 13, 2019
The Honourable Justice C.D. Braid
REASONS ON MOTIONS
I. OVERVIEW
[1] Erica and Geoff Chovaz signed a rent-to-own agreement for a residential property with 7120761 Canada Inc. Mr. and Ms. Chovaz lived at the home for more than two years. They then entered into a second agreement for the home to be listed and sold to a third party. After it was sold, a dispute arose regarding whether Mr. and Ms. Chovaz were owed credit for rent paid; or alternatively, whether they owed money to 7120761 and its directors, Daniel St-Jean and Laurel Simmons. Litigation followed.
[2] Mr. and Ms. Chovaz moved to strike all or part of the other parties’ pleadings because they fail to comply with the rules of pleading. The other parties brought a motion to transfer the action to Superior Court, which was later abandoned when they filed a Statement of Claim in Superior Court.
[3] In these reasons, I shall address the following issues:
A. Should all or part of the Superior Court Statement of Claim be struck? B. Should all or part of the Small Claims Court Defence be struck? C. Should the court grant costs of the abandoned motion to transfer?
[4] For the reasons set out below, I make an order striking the pleadings and granting leave to file amended pleadings. I also order costs of the abandoned motion.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[5] In these reasons, I shall refer to Erica and Geoff Chovaz collectively as “the Chovazs”. In addition, I shall refer to 7120761 Canada Inc., Daniel St-Jean and Laurel Simmons collectively as “712 group”.
[6] The Chovazs and 7120761 entered into a rent-to-own agreement for a residential property, which permitted the Chovazs to occupy a home and gave them an option to purchase the home. The agreement stated that monetary credit would be given for rent paid.
[7] More than two years later, the Chovazs and 7120761 entered into a new agreement requiring the Chovazs to move out of the home so that it could be sold to a third party. The new agreement stated that, upon sale of the home, the Chovazs would receive $24,107.50 as the total monetary credit that had been earned as a result of rental payments made. The property subsequently sold for less than the anticipated value, and the Chovazs were not paid.
[8] The Chovazs issued a Statement of Claim in Small Claims Court against 712 group, for payment in the amount of $24,513.67 in damages for breach of contract.
[9] 712 group initially defended themselves by delivering a Statement of Defence denying liability. In February of 2019, the defendants delivered an Amended Defence and a Defendant’s Claim, seeking damages of $85,439.86. The Defendants’ Claim exceeded the limits of the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, which was $25,000.
[10] The Chovazs stated that the Defence and Defendants’ Claim did not conform to the rules of pleadings. The Chovazs requested that the excess amount of the claim (above the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction) be abandoned. 712 group provided a number of draft pleadings, but refused to waive the excess amount of the claim.
[11] The Chovazs brought a motion to strike all or part of the Defence and Defendants’ Claim. The motion was adjourned once on consent. The day before the return date of that motion, 712 group served a motion to transfer the action to Superior Court.
[12] The Small Claims Court ordered that the motion to transfer and the motion to strike pleadings should be heard together by a Superior Court judge. After one appearance in Superior Court, 712 group abandoned the motion to transfer, issued a separate claim in Superior Court for the same relief that they had claimed in Small Claims Court action, and withdrew the Defendants’ Claim in the Small Claims Court.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[13] The Chovazs submit that 712 group’s pleadings:
a) Are repetitive and not concise; b) Contain evidence that are not material facts; c) Include argument, opinions and evidence that would be more properly suited for a factum or affidavit; d) Are not clear regarding the cause of action, including the type of misrepresentation and elements of misrepresentation alleged; and e) Are embarrassing, scandalous, and an abuse of process.
[14] 712 group states that the Chovazs have taken a restrictive and overly technical approach. During submissions, counsel for 712 group acknowledged that the pleadings could have been clearer. However, counsel argued that the motions to strike are needlessly complicating matters; are a waste of time and money; and are a blatant attempt to deprive 712 group of the opportunity to present their case.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Should all or part of the Superior Court Statement of Claim be struck?
[15] Rule 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, requires that pleadings in Superior Court:
a. Contain a concise statement of the material facts, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved; b. Specify the nature of any claim for relief and the amount of damages claimed; and c. The effect of a document or conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words need not be pleaded unless they are themselves material.
[16] The function of pleadings is three-fold:
(i) define with clarity the questions in dispute between the litigants; (ii) give fair notice of the case to be met and the remedies sought; and (iii) assist the court to investigate the truth and the allegations made.
See: Jourdain v. Ontario (2008), 2008 ONSC 35684, 91 O.R. (3d) 506 (S.C.).
[17] A Statement of Claim must disclose the material facts that establish the constituent elements of the claim. It must be pleaded with sufficient precision and clarity to enable a defendant, and the trial court, to identify the issues to be decided: Pennyfeather v. Timminco Limited, 2011 ONSC 4257, 107 O.R. (3d) 201.
[18] I agree with and adopt the principles regarding pleadings that were stated by Perell J. in Kang v. Sun Life, 2011 ONSC 6335, 4 C.C.L.I. (5th) 86, rev’d on other grounds 2013 ONCA 118, 303 O.A.C. 64. I have paraphrased below the principles that are relevant to the pleadings in this case:
a) A material fact is a fact that is necessary for a complete cause of action. Material facts include facts that establish the constituent elements of the claim or defence. b) A material fact is a fact that can have an influence on the determination of a party's rights. c) A fact or issue that is incapable of affecting the outcome is immaterial and ought not to be pleaded. It may be struck out. d) A pleading should not describe the evidence that will prove a material fact. The prohibition against pleading evidence is designed to prevent the pleading of facts that are subordinate and that merely tend to prove the truth of the substantial facts in issue. Pleadings of evidence may be struck out. e) Injecting evidence into a pleading undermines the purpose of a pleading and conflates the pleadings stage of an action with subsequent evidentiary-focused parts of the proceeding. f) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material. g) Pleadings that are irrelevant, argumentative or inserted only for colour, or that constitute bare unfounded allegations should be struck out as scandalous. Pleadings that are redundant and repetitious may also be struck. h) A pleading is not designed for personal reflection, and its focus should be on the material facts for a claim or defence. It is not a place for commentary and argument.
[19] The distinction between material facts, particulars and evidence is not a bright line. There will be situations where it is necessary to plead material facts that may also be regarded as evidence: Jourdain.
[20] In this case, I find the following significant deficiencies in the Statement of Claim:
i. The cause of action is not properly pled. Although the claim suggests that it is based on breach of contract, that is not specifically stated. It also appears that the claim may be alleging a breach of the rent-to-own and/or new agreement, as well as a breach of an oral contract to renovate a bathroom (it is not clear which contract or contracts are alleged to have been breached, and what damages are sought as a result). 712 group states that the agreement also provided that they would be entitled to legal fees if the Chovazs breached the agreement. (During submissions, counsel for 712 group advised that the cause of action is purely based on breach of contract, and that no tort is being alleged). ii. Although misrepresentation is pled, it is not clear whether it is innocent, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation being alleged. (During submissions, counsel for 712 group advised that they allege innocent misrepresentation only, which 712 group submits voided the second agreement) iii. Although 712 group has pled misrepresentation, the elements of misrepresentation have not been clearly pled. The claim should plead the elements of the alleged misrepresentation all in one place. iv. The heads of damages and quantum of damages are not clearly stated.
[21] The deficiencies set out above make it impossible for the Chovazs to know the case to meet. The entire Statement of Claim is struck, with leave to amend.
[22] In addition to those significant deficiencies, the Claim also contains some repetition, argument, evidence and irrelevant information. Since a fresh Claim is required, and in light of 712 group’s request for guidance from the court, I have provided a chart dealing with each of the impugned paragraphs to address various concerns raised by the Chovazs:
| Par. | Impugned Portions | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 29, 47, 51, 53d, 55 | References to clause numbers of the Agreement/Contract and what the document says, or references such as “under the previously mentioned clauses.” | • These references should be removed. • These are references to an external document. This is evidence not material fact. |
| 39, 52, 54, 57, 58 | “Therefore”; and “for the reasons given above” | These references are unnecessary and/or are argument. These words should be removed. |
| 3 | References to 712’s website | What the website says is immaterial, and these references should be removed. |
| 6 | Reference to the reason that Chovazs participated in the rent-to-own program starting with “to enable them..” to the end. | This reference should be removed as these are not material facts. |
| 11 | Reference to what 712 group could have done | This paragraph contains evidence and argument. The entire paragraph should be removed. |
| 12 & 51 | Calculation of late charges and daily late fees | I do not agree that the wording of these paragraphs should be struck because they contain evidence. Some leniency should be given for drafting style. However, since these paragraphs are repetitive and contain the same language, the last sentence of paragraph 12 should be removed and either paragraph 12 or 51 should be removed. |
| 13 | a. Reference to prescribed date of June 1, 2016 b. “against them at once” | a. This reference is not problematic. b. These words are unnecessary and should be removed. |
| 14 | The last portion of the paragraph, beginning with “secure in the knowledge..” | This is not a material fact and should be struck. |
| 15 | Entire paragraph should be struck as it does not contain material facts. | |
| 16 | Reference to the “restraint” and “good faith” that 712 group displayed. | Entire paragraph should be struck as it does not contain material facts. |
| 18 | a. “unfortunately” b. “which will be described in detail below” | References a. and b. are opinion and/or are unnecessary. They should be removed. Other portions of the paragraph that are challenged are not problematic. The paragraph should be reworded to state: “On 30 occasions from June 1, 2016 to January 1, 2018, the defendants made late payment of their occupancy fees, for which the plaintiffs were entitled to charge late charges and daily late fees.” |
| 19 | Chovazs informed 712 group that the house was worth $800,000 | This paragraph is not problematic, as it sets out the alleged misrepresentation. |
| 20 & 46 | a. Reference to the names of parties involved in discussion b. Reference to the cost of fixing the bathroom, incurred by 712 group at Chovazs’ request | a. Although the names of the parties are not necessary, they do not need to be removed. Some leniency should be given for drafting style. b. Cost of repairs is part of the claim and need not be removed. These paragraphs are repetitive and contain the same language. Either paragraph 20 or 46 should be removed. |
| 22 | a. Reference to payments: “albeit late ones” b. Reference to Chovazs making payments “With a view to exercising their option to buy the house” | a. This statement does not need to be removed. b. This reference is not a material fact and is not within the knowledge of 712 group. It should be removed. |
| 24 | Reference to the names of parties involved in discussion | Although the names of the parties are not necessary, they do not need to be removed. Some leniency should be given for drafting style. |
| 25 | I do not find this paragraph to be problematic. | |
| 26 | a. Reference to St-Jean being unaware of the real estate market in Cambridge b. Reference to how St-Jean was looking for a particular amount of money | a. This may or may not be a material fact. Some leniency should be given for drafting style. b. This paragraph contains evidence as to what was in St-Jean’s mind as opposed to a concise statement of a material fact. The final portion of the paragraph beginning with “since he was looking…” should be struck. |
| 27 | Comments made by St-Jean regarding how he could achieve a particular amount of money from the sale of the house | This is evidence of St-Jean’s assumptions, is not a material fact and should be struck. This sort of paragraph would be more suited to an affidavit rather than pleadings. |
| 28 | a. “It was on this basis that” b. “in their respective locations” | a. Refers back to par.27, which is to be struck, so this reference should also be removed. b. It is irrelevant where the new agreement was signed, so these words should be struck. |
| 29 | Other than the reference to the clauses of the agreement (addressed above), I do not find this paragraph to be problematic. | |
| 30 | Reference to “representations” that turned out not to be true. | It is not clear what “representations” are being referred to. Once the elements of misrepresentation are set out in one paragraph, this will be clearer. |
| 31, 32, 34 & 35 | These paragraphs are evidence and not material facts. They are not necessary to the pleading. The paragraphs are worded more like an affidavit rather than a pleading and should be removed. | |
| 33 | Much of this paragraph is repetitive, unnecessary and argumentative. The paragraph should be struck, except for “By June 28, 2018, an offer had been received to purchase the house for $635,000.” | |
| 37 | This paragraph includes unnecessary duplication. The paragraph should be shortened to simply say “On July 19, 2018, an offer was received to purchase the house for $665,000.” | |
| 38 | Reference to the content of an inspection report. | Although technically this could be seen as pleading evidence, it may also be material fact, so this paragraph is not problematic. |
| 39 | This paragraph is not problematic, other than as noted above. | |
| 40 | Reference to a phone conversation | Words “in a phone conversation” are unnecessary pleading of evidence and should be removed. |
| 41 | Reference to statements made by Chovazs: “whether made willingly or not” | The claim should clearly state whether 712 group is alleging innocent, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| 1, 43, 45 | a. “by then 170 days had elapsed”, “during which” b. Unknown amounts for mortgage taxes and insurance | a. These words in paragraph 43 are unnecessary and should be removed b. The Claim should clearly state the quantum of damages. Paragraph 1 should clearly state all damages, and combine the information in paragraphs 1, 43 and 45. In addition, the claim should state a dollar value for each item claimed. |
| 1, 42 & 44 | Paragraphs 1, 42 and 44 should be amended to properly plead the cause of action at the start of the claim so that it is clear what cause of action is being advanced. | |
| 45 | The word “defendants” is clearly a typographical error that should be amended. | |
| 47 | This paragraph should be shortened to simply state that the Chovazs’ requirement to pay the occupancy fee ended on closing. | |
| 52 | “the last prescribed date before the sale of the house on August 17, 2018” | These words are unnecessary and should be removed. |
| 53 | This entire paragraph is a repetition of earlier paragraphs, which makes it unnecessary. There should only be one reference to these points in the pleading. | |
| 55 | “without protest” | These words are unnecessary and irrelevant. They should be removed. |
| 56 | Reference to Chovazs’ actions causing 712 group to incur legal fees | 712 group have pleaded that it is a term of the agreements that Chovazs pay legal fees arising from breaches of the agreements. This paragraph is not improper. |
[23] 712 group is ordered to amend their Statement of Claim in accordance with the ruling set out above, and is granted leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.
B. Should all or part of the Small Claims Court Defence be struck?
[24] A Defence in Small Claims Court must set out the reasons why the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s claim, expressed in concise non-technical language with a reasonable amount of detail: Rule 9.02 of the Small Claims Court Rules, O. Reg. 258/98.
[25] In Small Claims Court, a liberal, non-technical approach should be taken to pleadings: Brighton Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. v. Savoia (2006), 2006 ONSC 1667, 79 O.R. (3d) 386 (Div. Ct.).
[26] In this case, the current Defence is the second amended version of the Defence. The first 37 pages of that document are struck out. At minimum, there should be a Fresh as Amended Defence to remove those 37 pages.
[27] The wording of the Statement of Claim is very similar to the Defence. My reasons regarding the deficiencies in the Claim are equally applicable to the Defence. In particular, the Defence suffers from a lack of clarity regarding the actual defence to the claim, the nature of the alleged misrepresentations and the elements of misrepresentation. The entire Defence shall be struck as a result.
[28] In addition to those significant deficiencies, the Defence also contains some repetition, argument, evidence and irrelevant information. Since a fresh Defence is required, and in light of 712 group’s request for guidance from the court, I have provided a chart dealing with each of the impugned paragraphs to address various concerns raised by the Chovazs. Where the paragraphs of the Defence are similar or identical to those in the Superior Court Statement of Claim, the chart below refers back to the reasons above dealing with the similar or identical paragraphs in the Claim:
| Par. | Impugned Portions | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Page 1-37 | 712 group shall file a Fresh as Amended Defence and remove pages 1-37, which are crossed out entirely. | |
| 2 | See ruling re: par. 3 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 5 | See ruling re: par. 6 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 23, 27, 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 46 | References to documents that are contained in 712 group’s document brief. | Reference to documents should be removed as this is evidence and not material facts. In particular, paragraphs 15, 23 and 31 should be struck entirely. Any reference to where a document can be found in the document brief should be removed. This might be appropriate for an affidavit but not a pleading. |
| 13 | See ruling re: par 18 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 14 | References to clause numbers of the Agreement/Contract. | See ruling re: par 8 of the Stmt of Claim |
| 18 | See ruling re: par 22 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 22 | See ruling re: par 24 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 24 | See ruling re: par 25 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 25 | See ruling re: par 26 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 26 | See ruling re: par 27 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 27 | See ruling re: par 28 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 28 | It is immaterial to the defence that Chovazs sent an email expressing appreciation for St-Jean after the rent-to-own agreement was signed. | The entire paragraph should be removed. |
| 29 | See ruling re: par 29 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 30 | See ruling re: par 30 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 32 | See ruling re: par 31 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 33 | See ruling re: par 32 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 34 | See ruling re: par 33 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 35 | See ruling re: par 34 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 36 | See ruling re: par 35 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 37, 44 | These paragraphs include evidence and reference to documents, both of which do not belong in pleadings. | The entire paragraph is struck. |
| 39 | See ruling re: par 37 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 40 | See ruling re: par 38 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 41 | See ruling re: par 39 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 42 | See ruling re: par 40 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 43 | See ruling re: par 41 of the Stmt of Claim | |
| 46 | See ruling re: par 43 of the Stmt of Claim. In addition, portions of this paragraph are a duplication of paragraph 39. | |
| 50 | See ruling re: par 44 of the Stmt of Claim. This paragraph sets out the defence. | |
| 52 & 53 | These paragraphs state that 712 group withdraws the defendants claim in SCC and describes the claim in Superior Court | These paragraphs are irrelevant to the defence and are improper. |
[29] 712 group is ordered to amend their Defence in accordance with the ruling set out above, and is granted leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Defence.
C. Should the court grant costs of the abandoned motion to transfer?
[30] The Chovazs seeks their full legal costs of the abandoned motion to transfer the Small Claims Court action to Superior Court. The Chovazs incurred approximately $5,000 in legal fees on the abandoned motion to transfer.
[31] Where a motion is abandoned, a responding party on whom the Notice of Motion is served is entitled to the costs of the motion forthwith, unless the court orders otherwise: Rule 37.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[32] I am concerned about the following steps that 712 group took in this litigation:
- First, they issued a Defendant’s claim in Small Claims Court that was more than triple the maximum monetary jurisdiction of that court. Counsel for 712 group stated that this claim was issued in Small Claims Court because they hoped for a settlement in that court, and wanted their legal position known prior to the Small Claims Court settlement conference.
- Second, they essentially threatened to issue a claim in Superior Court if the Small Claims Court action did not settle.
- Third, they brought a motion to transfer the action to Superior Court, which significantly delayed the Chovazs’ motion to strike pleadings.
- Fourth, they abandoned the motion to transfer; commenced an action in Superior Court, taking the same legal position as they had advanced in the Defendant’s Claim in Small Claims Court; and withdrew the Defendant’s claim.
[33] 712 group states that it took the fourth step in order to reduce litigation costs. Since the motion to transfer has been abandoned, there are now two separate actions in two different courts. I fail to see how abandoning the motion to transfer and issuing the claim in Superior Court will reduce costs.
[34] A party who serves a notice of abandonment of a motion has the burden of persuading the court that it is appropriate not to order costs. I accept that 712 group had a valid reason for bringing the motion to transfer in the first place, but they have not demonstrated that they had a valid reason for abandoning that motion. 712 group has not shown any reason for the court to deny costs of the abandoned motion. Therefore, the Chovazs should be compensated for costs thrown away as a result of the abandoned motion to transfer.
[35] 712 group argues there are insufficient particulars in the Chovazs’ Bill of Costs regarding the work completed specifically on the abandoned motion to transfer. Unfortunately, 712 group has failed to provide its own Bill of Costs, which would have been helpful. Having heard the submissions of counsel for the Chovazs, I accept counsel’s estimate and description of time expended on the motion to transfer, which included court attendances and research.
[36] In determining quantum, the court is to consider the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. Those factors include the principle of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the parties, the complexity of the proceeding, the importance of the proceeding, and the conduct of the parties in litigation. I have considered these factors.
[37] I have also considered the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 ONCA 14579, 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.). The fixing of costs should reflect what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount to be paid, rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant. The two most important factors are the principle of indemnity, and the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay in the event they were unsuccessful.
[38] I find that a fair and reasonable award of costs is $4,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.
V. COSTS OF THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACTION
[39] Deputy Judge Bennett ordered that the motion to transfer be heard by a Superior Court together with the motion to strike pleadings, and that the costs of the Small Claims court proceeding be determined at the same time. Although the Chovazs asks this court to make a costs order for the entire proceedings so far in the Small Claims Court, I find that it would only be appropriate to do so if this action was transferred to Superior Court.
[40] Since the motion to transfer has been abandoned, the Small Claims Court action will continue. To the extent that it is necessary to do so, this court orders that costs of the Small Claims Court proceedings are reserved to the Small Claims Court trial judge, or as otherwise agreed to by the parties.
VI. COSTS OF THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE
[41] The Chovazs have been successful on these motions and are entitled to costs.
[42] In the event that the parties cannot agree as to costs, they are directed to provide written submissions. The submissions shall be no longer than two typed pages, double-spaced, in addition to any relevant Bill of Costs and written Offers to Settle. The Chovazs shall provide costs submissions by April 30, 2020; and 712 group shall provide any response by May 29, 2020. The parties may mutually agree on an extension of the timelines and should advise the court if they do so.
[43] In the event that submissions are not received from either party by May 29, 2020 and there is no extension agreed to by the parties, costs shall be deemed settled. Costs submissions shall be filed by email to Kitchener.Superior.Court@ontario.ca, and marked for the attention of Justice Braid.
VII. ORDERS
[44] For all these reasons, the court makes the following orders:
The motions to strike the pleadings are granted. 712 group may deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in the Superior Court action and a Fresh as Amended Defence in the Small Claims Court action, in accordance with these Reasons. These pleadings shall be sent to counsel for the Chovazs by April 30, 2020. In light of the Superior Court’s closure due to COVID-19, these pleadings need not be issued before they are served. However, they shall be issued, served, and filed within two weeks of the court office resuming operations to accept filing of pleadings.
After 712 group has delivered their revised pleadings, the Chovazs shall have 30 days to deliver their responding pleadings.
7120761 Canada Inc., Daniel St-Jean and Laurel Simmons are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $4,000 for the abandoned motion to transfer, inclusive of HST and disbursements. These costs shall be paid to Erica and Geoff Chovaz by April 30, 2020.
[45] The parties have advised that they will likely agree to the actions being tried together or consolidated in Superior Court. In my view, it would be prudent to reach such an agreement to avoid duplicity of proceedings.
Braid, J. Released: April 1, 2020