COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-0455-00
DATE: 2020 10 27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID BACCHUS
Norman Groot for the Plaintiff
Plaintiff
- and -
SARA LORRAINE MUNN, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and DOE CORPORATIONS
Howard Cohen, Carolyn Gandy and Sabrina Waraich for the Defendants
Defendants
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR DECISION
LEMAY J
[1] The Plaintiff and Defendant were in a relationship of some nature. The nature of the relationship remains to be determined. Both parties agree that the relationship started out with the Defendant providing sexual services to the Plaintiff. The Defendant says that the relationship never changed. The Plaintiff says that the relationship did change, and that they were planning a life together, but that life together fell apart when the Defendant defrauded him of considerable amounts of money.
[2] I am case managing this action and have been since August. As part of the case management process, a discovery plan has been imposed, and discoveries are scheduled to take place in early November this year. The parties cannot agree on the scope or extent of pre-production discovery in this matter.
[3] As a result, I required the parties to provide written submissions on these issues and have promised them a prompt ruling. I have set my rulings out below.
Background
a) The Parties and the History of the Relationship
[4] The Plaintiff is a man in his mid-50’s. He is currently separated from his wife, and has two children. I understand that the separation took place in the latter part of 2017 and the details of the separation were finalized in the early part of 2018.
[5] The Defendant is a woman in her early 30’s who worked in the sex trade industry for ten years, commencing in 2009. The Defendant pleads that she had a traumatic childhood, which included a serious sexual assault.
[6] The Plaintiff alleges that the parties first met in and around March of 2017, through a website called “backpage.com”. The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff first made contact with her in 2014 and was her client for five years.
[7] The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant advised him at some point later in 2017 that she was in love with him, and wanted to leave the escort industry and enter into an exclusive relationship with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that he proposed to the Defendant in 2018, after several months of exclusive dating. The Plaintiff alleges that he provided the Defendant with an engagement ring, which she accepted.
[8] The Defendant alleges that, at some point in 2017 or 2018, the Plaintiff asked for an exclusive relationship and agreed to pay the Defendant an annual wage, plus expenses, for that exclusivity. As a result of this arrangement, the Defendant gave up her other escort clients. With respect to the engagement ring, the Defendant alleges that she never wore it and that she ultimately rejected the Plaintiff’s proposal.
[9] The Defendant owned a property in Hamilton. In late 2017, the Defendant purchased a house in Stoney Creek. The house was a new build and was scheduled to be completed in 2020. The house has been completed, and the Defendant has taken title to it. There is a Certificate of Pending Litigation (“CPL”) registered against the property on consent.
[10] There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the title to the Stoney Creek property was to be held jointly. The Plaintiff says that it was to be held jointly, but that he did not want to go on title in 2017 or 2018 because of the fact that he was going through a separation and divorce. The Defendant says that there was never an agreement for the Plaintiff to live at the Stoney Creek property or to be listed on title for the property.
[11] In addition to the Stoney Creek property, there are other allegations relating to monies that were transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The specific transfers allegedly include:
a) Transfers allegedly for educational expenses.
b) Transfers to assist the Defendant in renovations on a property that she owned in Hamilton.
c) Transfers to repair the Defendant’s credit rating, to unlock allegedly frozen accounts and to address issued relating to the Defendant’s bank accounts.
d) Transfers for the Defendant to start a cleaning business.
e) Transfers for the Defendant to obtain some potentially compromising videotape from some third parties, with compromising pictures that may have included the Plaintiff.
[12] The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant made unauthorized charges to one of his credit cards. There may be other categories of transfers that the Plaintiff is challenging or where he is seeking reimbursement, but this summary provides a sense of the nature of the transactions that are in issue in this case.
[13] Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant held monies in trust for him from the inheritance that he was receiving from his parents in 2017, as well as from the equalization payment that he received from his former spouse after their separation was finalized in 2018.
[14] Some of these funds came from a CIBC account that the Plaintiff alleges was a joint account with his parents. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant was holding these amounts in trust for him.
[15] In 2019, while waiting for the Stoney Creek property to close, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant told him she would be working for Carnival Cruise Lines in Miami on a one year contract. During 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not see each other in person more than once or twice. They did continue to see each other through videoconferencing on a regular basis. During this time, the Plaintiff alleges that he continued to cover expenses for the Defendant.
[16] In the fall of 2019, the Plaintiff concluded (apparently correctly) that the Defendant was not working for Carnival Cruises. The Defendant alleges that she had feared for her safety and had decided that she wanted to distance herself from the Plaintiff. As a result, although the Defendant was still living in the Hamilton area throughout 2019, she told the Plaintiff she was working for Carnival Cruises in Miami. The relationship ended shortly after the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had not been working for Carnival Cruises out of Miami and had been continuing to reside in the Hamilton area the whole time.
[17] The Plaintiff is claiming damages in fraud or, alternatively, in breach of contract on the basis of the Defendant’s false representations respecting their relationship. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the significant monies that he provided to the Defendant between 2017 and 2019 were loans, and that the purchase of the property in Stoney Creek was for their mutual benefit.
[18] The Defendant claims that the relationship was purely a financial one throughout, and that the gifts that she received from the Plaintiff were either in the nature of payment for services rendered or in the nature of actual gifts. As a result, the Defendant claims that these gifts and/or payments for services do not have to be repaid.
[19] Given the factual disputes between the parties, I have made no conclusions as to what actually happened in this case. However, it is necessary to set out a general summary of the allegations made by each side in order to understand whether the pre-discovery documentation that has been requested should be produced.
b) The History of the Litigation
[20] Shortly after the Plaintiff determined that the Defendant was still living in Hamilton, he commenced this litigation. As part of the litigation, the Plaintiff brought a Mareva injunction against the Defendant on an urgent basis.
[21] As the Courts were closed in May, counsel for the Plaintiff provided a letter outlining why the motion was urgent. This was provided under the Practice Direction then in place. Based on this letter, Bielby J. invited the Plaintiff to file his materials and proceed initially on an ex parte basis.
[22] On June 3rd, 2020, Bielby J. made an order on an interim and without prejudice basis freezing the Defendant’s assets and requiring the home builder in Stoney Creek (Empire Homes) to provide the Plaintiff particulars of the purchase and sale of the property. Part of this June 3rd, 2020 Order required the Plaintiff to serve all of the motion material on the Defendant.
[23] The motion for the Mareva injunction came back before Bielby J. on June 18th, 2020. This time both sides were present. Bielby J. released his decision on June 24th, 2020.
[24] Bielby J. determined that the Mareva injunction should not be continued, and that a Norwich order should also not be issued. However, he provided the Plaintiff with some relief in the form of a series of disclosure orders.
[25] After Bielby J. dissolved the Mareva injunction and provided the parties with directions on June 24th, 2020 the Plaintiff sought to have the Order of Bielby J. set aside, and to have the Mareva injunction reinstated. I addressed that issue by way of an endorsement on August 12th, 2020. The effect of my August 12th, 2020 decision is a matter that is still the subject of litigation between the parties.
[26] In any event, I recommended that this matter be case-managed, and was appointed the case management judge by Ricchetti R.S.J. I have convened a number of case management calls in this matter in order to move it forward.
[27] The most recent case-management call was convened on October 2nd, 2020. At that time, the parties advised me that they had a dispute over the scope of pre-production discovery. Given the fact that discoveries were scheduled for the first week of November, counsel acceded to my suggestion that this matter be dealt with by way of written submissions.
[28] The submissions were provided by both parties, with the deadline for providing submissions being October 14th, 2020. I have considered all of those submissions.
[29] The Plaintiff has asked the Defendant for additional pre-discovery production. However, the Plaintiff has not sought to have me order that production. The Defendant has sought pre-discovery production, and I am making some orders in that regard. I will address each party’s submissions separately.
The Plaintiff’s Production Requests
[30] The Plaintiff has advised that there are documents that he has asked for that have not been provided by the Defendant. These include records of electronic communications, schedules to tax returns and the like. However, the Plaintiff does not wish to delay the examinations for discovery on account of any of the outstanding document production.
[31] As a result, the Plaintiff will be able to raise these issues after the discoveries, which are being held in early November.
The Defendant’s Production Requests
[32] The Defendant seeks production of eight different categories of documents, as follows:
a) The Plaintiff’s unredacted financial records from 2014 to 2019.
b) A full unredacted copy of all of the Plaintiff’s credit card statements between 2014 and December of 2019.
c) Unredacted communications records between 2014 and 2019.
d) Documentation pertaining to the Plaintiff’s power of attorney over his parents’ financial and medical decisions.
e) All documentation relating to the separation of the Plaintiff from his wife, Chandra Persaud Bacchus.
f) All receipts and documentation in relation to any gifts purchased by the Plaintiff for the Defendant.
g) Full unredacted copies of CRA notices of assessment and completed income tax packages for the period from 2014 to 2019.
h) Any and all records and receipts from the Plaintiff’s trip to Paris in December of 2018, including airfare.
[33] I will deal with each category of documentation in turn.
a) The Plaintiff’s Unredacted Financial Records from 2014 to 2019
[34] I start with the period of time that the production orders should cover. The parties have a dispute over whether the relationship between them started in 2014 or in 2017. The Plaintiff says it did not start until 2017 and, as a result, objects to producing pre-2017 documentation. The Plaintiff characterizes the Defendant’s requests for pre-2017 documentation as a “fishing expedition” and argues that the Defendant has failed to produce any pre-2017 documentation to support an earlier date for the start of the relationship.
[35] The fact that the Defendant has failed to produce any financial documentation to substantiate her relationship with the Plaintiff prior to 2017 may, at trial, be a significant hurdle to establishing her claim. However, that is not a material consideration at the pre-discovery production phase of the litigation.
[36] The Defendant asserts that the relationship started in 2014. Given the allegations in the pleadings of both parties, the commencement of the relationship is a genuine dispute between them. As a result, the Defendant is entitled to ask the Plaintiff for his financial records back to 2014, to explore whether they show transfers of funds from the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
[37] The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is seeking “unchecked access to the entirety of the Plaintiff’s life” is incorrect. The Defendant is seeking access to records that she says are relevant, and that pertain to a time when the Defendant says that she had a relationship with the Plaintiff. As a result, some of the documentation that is sought is relevant to the issues in dispute.
[38] I agree with the Plaintiff’s submission that the bar for relevancy was raised with the changes to the Rules that became effective on January 1st, 2010 (see Steward v. Kempster 2012 ONSC 7236 at para 11). However, even when this new higher test is applied, the documents sought by the Defendant are still producible.
[39] Given that the dispute is over whether the parties had a relationship starting in 2014, any financial transfers from the Plaintiff to the Defendant between 2014 and 2017 would be relevant to proving the existence of a relationship of some sort prior to 2017. Similarly, the absence of any transactions in this time period would be relevant to disproving the existence of any relationship pre-2017.
[40] This brings me to the argument that the Plaintiff has “produced the financial transactions that he alleges are specific purpose loans produced to the Defendant Munn, as detailed in the Statement of Claim.” The Plaintiff seems to be suggesting that he has produced the records that he believes are relevant and that nothing more needs to be produced. The Defendant has attempted to demonstrate that this statement is false, and that there are more records relating to even the transactions that the Plaintiff has produced that he has not disclosed. While the Defendant may be correct in her assertions, it is not necessary for me to resolve that question.
[41] Regardless of whether the Plaintiff has produced all of the transfers and records that he says are relevant, the Defendant is entitled to test that assertion, and to argue that there were other transfers and/or that the transfers that have been produced were structured in a different way than the Plaintiff claims. Permitting the Plaintiff to produce only the records that he believes are relevant is not what is required by the production process. The Plaintiff is also required to produce documents that are relevant to the Defendant’s claims.
[42] I should also deal with the issue of proportionality. In my view, the request made by the Defendant is proportional, with one limitation that I will come to. I reach this conclusion for three reasons:
a) The allegations that have been made against the Defendant in this case are of fraud and are, therefore, very serious. A complete exploration of those allegations is generally appropriate and will require a more complete review of the record.
b) The amounts in dispute in this case are close to $1 million. As a result, the production of some financial records is not a particularly burdensome request to impose on the Plaintiff.
c) The production of records in advance of discovery allows for a more complete discussion of the evidence on discovery, and will assist in the just, most expeditious and least costly determination of the action.
[43] As I noted, however, there is one limitation to the Defendant’s request that, at this point, is necessary. The Defendant seeks “all financial records”. This is a very broad term that would include accounting records, communications with the Plaintiff’s accountant, and other items that do not appear to be relevant. The request should be narrowed to the items that are relevant.
[44] The Plaintiff’s bank and credit card statements from the time period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 appear to me to be relevant, and are to be produced before discoveries if possible, as they will potentially show financial transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or financial transactions for the Defendant’s benefit. I am not prepared to order the production of most other financial records until the relevance is more fully explored on discovery.
b) Credit Card Statements
[45] The production of credit cards is dealt with in the previous section. However, there is a further reason why these records should be produced. The Defendant alleges that the credit card statements will show that the Plaintiff booked hotel rooms for the parties prior to a trip to Cuba in 2017. Again, this is evidence that will go to prove one party or the other’s version of when the relationship started.
[46] These documents are covered by the previous production order, and no further order is necessary at this time.
c) Unredacted Communications Records from 2014 to 2019
[47] The Defendant seeks an order requiring the production of all communications records between the parties for the period from 2014 to 2019. The Plaintiff opposes this request on two grounds:
a) There was no relationship prior to 2017 and, as a result, the Plaintiff alleges that there are no communications records to produce.
b) Most of the records are lost, and would have to be listed in a Schedule “C” to the Affidavit in any event.
[48] The first issue has been addressed in the section on financial records. The Plaintiff’s claim that there was no relationship prior to 2017 is not sufficient to justify refusing production. The Defendant says that there was a relationship as far back as 2014. She is entitled to explore the evidence relevant to that assertion. Accepting the Plaintiff’s assertion that these documents are not producible because there was no relationship prior to 2017 would be rendering a final judgment on an issue that is very much in dispute. That is not my role.
[49] Given this conclusion, the Plaintiff is obligated to produce any communications between him and the Defendant from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019. He is free to assert that none exist for the period prior to 2017 because there was no relationship, but he is obligated to produce anything for this time period if such documents do come into his possession.
[50] This brings me to the second point. The Plaintiff is entitled to take the positon that no communications exist and/or that they have been lost. He is also entitled to include a detailed Schedule “C” outlining the documents that he no longer has possession, power or control over. The Plaintiff is, however, required to conduct a diligent search of his records and make inquiries of third parties to obtain this documentation. I acknowledge that these inquiries may not be complete prior to discoveries, but they must be undertaken.
[51] This brings me to a specific dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff asserts that the WhatsApp communications between the parties that have been produced are substantively complete. However, the Defendant points to a specific message in which the Plaintiff says that he is sending a picture to the Defendant. The message is included, but the picture is not. The Plaintiff argues that he does not have to produce anything further.
[52] The Plaintiff goes on to assert that “while he is not opposed to producing a copy of the communications records with the media attached, it is the Plaintiff’s submission that it will not accomplish anything.” I reject this assertion for two reasons.
[53] First, the issue of communications between the parties is a critical one in this case. It goes to the heart of both the nature of the relationship and the purpose of the money that was transferred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As a result, the Court should tend to order broader production of the communications so that the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant can be fully defined.
[54] Second, the Plaintiff alleges that the production is “substantively complete”. It is not for the Plaintiff to say whether “substantively complete” is sufficient. The Defendant is entitled to review the entirety of the communications logs. The Plaintiff argues that requiring further production where production is “substantively complete” is not a proportional request, but does not explain how it would be unduly burdensome. In any event, given the significant allegations and the significant amount of money at stake, I do not see a concern with proportionality arising on the request for the complete WhatsApp record.
[55] As a result, the Plaintiff is required to produce the complete communications from the WhatsApp record as well as the other documentation discussed above.
d) Documents Pertaining to the Plaintiff’s Power of Attorney over his Parents’ Financial and Medical Decisions
[56] The Defendant makes this very broad production request on the basis that “documents pertaining to the Plaintiff’s power of attorney are highly relevant as they will show whether the Plaintiff had the authority to write cheques from his parents’ account.” The Defendant also claims that she is entitled to understand the source of the funds that the Plaintiff is asserting a claim over.
[57] The Plaintiff has refused this request, and argues that the funds that he provided from this account were from a joint CIBC account, and that these funds had been gifted to him by his parents so that they would not be taxed upon probate.
[58] The Defendant’s production request is overly broad. While the Defendant is entitled to understand the source of the funds, and obtain documents to establish that the Plaintiff had control over these funds, a much more narrow list of documents should, at least in the first instance, be sufficient.
[59] Specifically, documentation showing that the CIBC account from which the funds were paid is, and was at the relevant times, a joint account must be produced. In addition, any documents that exist that show the funds in that account had been gifted to the Plaintiff must be produced. These documents are relevant to the issues raised by the Defendant.
[60] Any of the other documents related to the Plaintiff’s power of attorney over his parents financial and medical decisions do not appear to me to meet the test of relevance. For example, how the Plaintiff was instructed to deal with his parents’ medical issues does not relate to any of the issues in this case, and would be an unnecessary intrusion on the privacy of the Plaintiff’s parents.
[61] Once discoveries are complete, the Defendant can raise further issues in respect of this production request.
e) All Documents Relating to the Separation Between the Plaintiff and Chandra Bacchus
[62] The Plaintiff seeks this documentation on the basis of an Affidavit sworn by Ms. Bacchus earlier in this action. That Affidavit was sworn for the Mareva injunction. It provides a version of Ms. Bacchus’ separation from the Plaintiff that supports the Plaintiff’s version of events. The Defendant, however, has pled that “Bacchus told Munn that his wife discovered that Baccus was using trust money to pay for sexual services” and that “it was in light of the above revelation that the Plaintiff’s wife sought a divorce”.
[63] Given that the question of why the Plaintiff and Ms. Bacchus separated is a live issue in this litigation, the contents of the separation agreement as well as any other communications between Ms. Bacchus and the Plaintiff may be relevant to the issues in this litigation and would appear to be producible.
[64] The Plaintiff argues that “the only relevant issues concerning the Plaintiff’s separation and the matters at issue in this Action are adequately covered in the Affidavit of [Ms. Bacchus].” In essence, the Plaintiff argues that he does not have an obligation to produce any documents because he has produced an Affidavit from a witness who supports his version of events. This is not how production works. With respect, the Defendant has a different version of events, and is entitled to production of relevant documents so she can explore the veracity of the Plaintiff, and of the Affiant. This is particularly true since the Affiant’s interest in the outcome of this case may be aligned with the Plaintiff’s interests.
[65] However, I understand that Ms. Bacchus is asserting privilege over the separation agreement. I am not prepared to order its production without providing Ms. Bacchus an opportunity to be heard on the question of privilege. She is not a party to this proceeding, and has not had the opportunity to advance her privilege argument. Similarly, she may wish to advance privacy concerns on her own behalf, and on behalf of the children (if they are minors) in respect of the separation agreement and related communications.
[66] As a result, the production of documentation relating to the separation appears to be relevant, but any orders in respect of the production of that documentation will have to be addressed through a third party records motion.
[67] One final point on this matter. These documents are relevant, and have been relevant since the commencement of the litigation. The Plaintiff is reminded of his obligations to preserve all possibly relevant documents. This obligation specifically applies to documents relating to his separation from Ms. Bacchus.
f) Receipts and Documentation Relating to Gifts Purchased by the Plaintiff for the Defendant
[68] The Defendant is seeking production of receipts and other documentation relating to gifts that were purchased by the Plaintiff for her. The Plaintiff advances the following arguments in support of his position:
a) The Plaintiff states that he does not have receipts for trips that he paid for where he did not accompany the Defendant because such receipts do not exist.
b) The Plaintiff states that, if the alleged gifts were provided to the Defendant, and were substantial then it is reasonable to assume that the Defendant would have evidence of these gifts.
[69] Neither of these arguments assist the Plaintiff in his position. The Plaintiff cannot reject the Defendant’s production requests simply by saying that he has a different version of events. Further, the fact that the Defendant has not produced evidence of a gift does not mean that the Plaintiff is absolved from producing his records.
[70] However, it seems to me that these production requests are covered by my previous order that the Plaintiff will produce a portion of his financial records. If there are other records that should be produced, that issue can be dealt with after discoveries have taken place and more specific records can be identified.
g) The Full Unredacted Tax Information for the Plaintiff
[71] The Defendant seeks this information for the period from 2014 to 2019 on the basis that the Plaintiff has claimed that he was in a “dire” financial situation”. In reviewing the Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim, it is clear that the Plaintiff has put his income for the last couple of years of the relationship in issue, even if he does not state that he was in a “dire” financial situation.
[72] The Plaintiff has alleged that he did not have the financial resources to support the payments he allegedly made to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s Notices of Assessment will assist in assessing his financial resources in the relevant time period. As a result, I am ordering the production of the Plaintiff’s Notices of Assessment for the tax years from 2014 to 2019.
[73] However, the Notices of Assessment may provide sufficient evidence to establish the Plaintiff’s financial circumstances between 2014 and 2019. As a result, I am not prepared to order the production of anything further until after a more complete record is presented to me after discoveries have taken place.
h) Receipts for the Trip to Paris
[74] The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has not produced any documentation for the trip to Paris that was taken in 2018. It was on this trip that the Plaintiff allegedly proposed to the Defendant.
[75] The Plaintiff alleges that there is no dispute that the trip happened. Therefore, the Plaintiff alleges that the documentation relating to this trip will not add anything to the record and is, therefore not relevant. I am not persuaded of this argument, but do not have to decide the issue at this point.
[76] The financial and credit card records that I have ordered produced in response to point (a) above should be sufficient to address this issue, at least in the first instance. Those records, including credit card statements, will show what expenses the Plaintiff incurred during the course of the trip. Given this fact, I am not persuaded to make any separate or additional order in this respect. This issue can be revisited after discoveries are completed.
Conclusion
[77] The Plaintiff is ordered to produce the following documents to the Defendant in advance of discoveries, if possible:
a) The Plaintiff’s bank account records from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019.
b) The Plaintiff’s credit card statements from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019.
c) The Plaintiff is to conduct a diligent search for any and all records of communications between him and the Defendant for the period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019 and produce all such communications.
d) More particularly, the Plaintiff is to produce the complete WhatsApp log between the parties for the period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019.
e) Documents showing the status of the CIBC account that the Plaintiff managed for his parents. To be specific, the documentation is to show whether, and at what time periods, the account was a joint account.
f) Documentation from the CIBC account for all transfers from that account to the Defendant.
g) The Plaintiff’s Notices of Assessment for the tax years from 2014 to 2019.
h) The Plaintiff is also to preserve all communications, documents and other records relating to his separation from Ms. Bacchus. The production of those documents will be addressed separately.
[78] I have made the orders to produce in advance of discovery “if possible”. I expect the Plaintiff to use his best efforts to obtain these documents. However, I do not expect the parties to lose the discovery days as a result of being unable to obtain all of the documents. This is particularly true given the Plaintiff’s practical acknowledgement that much of this documentation can be addressed by way of undertakings. In other words, the production is helpful but not essential for the discovery process.
[79] In addition, I acknowledge that in this list there are a number of records that I have ordered to be produced from 2014. It is understood that the Plaintiff may assert that no such records exist. However, the financial records that I have ordered produced must be produced for this time period, and the Plaintiff will be required to swear (or affirm) that there are no other documents for this time period.
[80] This brings me to the subject of costs. The parties are encouraged to agree on the costs of this motion. Failing agreement, the timetable for costs is as follows:
a) Each party is to provide their costs submissions within ten (10) calendar days of the release of these reasons. Those costs submissions are to be no longer than two (2) single-spaced pages, exclusive of bills of costs, offers to settle and case-law.
b) Each party will provide their responding costs submissions within seven (7) calendar days thereafter. Those submissions are to be no longer than one (1) single-spaced page, exclusive of case-law.
c) The parties are to file these submissions electronically with the Court office. In addition, a copy of those submissions is to be provided to my judicial assistant. The parties have her e-mail address.
d) The deadlines for costs submissions may not be extended, even on consent, without my leave. If no costs submissions (or requests for extensions) are received in accordance with the deadlines set out above, there will be no costs.
[81] The parties are reminded that this motion involved discrete narrow issues, and was completed based on the letters and other pre-existing documentation provided by counsel. I would not expect the costs of this motion to be particularly significant, and I would not expect the costs to include any of the preparation time for the larger file. Those larger preparation costs will be accounted for at the end of the action.
[82] As a final matter, I note that I will be releasing the decision on the Rule 25 and 21 motion sometime within the next week.
LEMAY J
Released: October 27, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-0455-00
DATE: 2020 10 27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DAVID BACCHUS
Plaintiff
- and -
SARA LORRAINE MUNN, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and DOE CORPORATIONS
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEMAY J
Released: October 27, 2020