COURT FILE NO.:CV 18-599621

DATE: 20210824

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: JUNXIA YU, Plaintiff

- and -

CHRISTOPHER LINNELL, ROBERT LINELL and UTE LINELL, Defendants

BEFORE: Master Jay Josefo

COUNSEL: O. Vinton, for the plaintiff, responding and cross-moving party,

P. Guy and T. Markovic, for the defendants Robert and Ute Linnell, moving and responding parties.

HEARD: August 17, 2021

DECISION RELEASED: August 24, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

These Motions: Overview

[1] Defendants Robert and Ute Linnell (“defendants” or “Robert” or “Ute”) move under Rule 56.01(1)(e) for Security for Costs from the plaintiff, Junxia Yu (“plaintiff” or “Ms. Yu”). In response, plaintiff brings a Cross-Motion for Security for Costs from those defendants. Plaintiff also seeks other relief described in her June 21, 2021 amended Notice of Cross-Motion, including the following:

a) the May 21, 2021 affidavit of Robert be struck; alternatively, the counterclaim of the defendants be struck, or, as clarified during the August 17^th hearing, that paragraphs 3-45 of Robert’s affidavit be struck,

b) Robert produce for inspection “unredacted copies of materials” referred to in his May 21, 2021 affidavit,

c) Helen Keeley (a lawyer consulted by Robert) produce for inspection “all materials in respect of Robert Linnell”,

d) the affidavit of Christopher Linnell (“Christopher”) of May 21, 2021 be struck, and,

e) the affidavit of Ron Aisenberg dated June 14, 2021 be struck; alternatively, that Mr. Aisenberg produce for inspection “all materials in respect of Christopher Linnell”.

[2] Plaintiff in her amended Notice of Cross-Motion withdrew her prior demand that the costs of this motion be paid personally by Mr. Guy, one of the lawyers for defendants. Plaintiff, as also set out in the amended Notice of Cross-Motion, had also sought, as of our last tele-case-conference (“TCC”) of July 22, 2021, that “the motion and cross-motion [before me] be adjourned for determination before a judge or [for] directions from a judge”. During our July 22, 2021 TCC, however, Mr. Vinton could not point to any of these above-listed issues being outside of my jurisdiction; nor could he provide any other reason why these issues must be brought to a Justice. Thus, it was concluded that the motion and cross motions were properly before me.

[3] Other issues for me to address include the defendants’ desire to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (“Defence”) to add a limitations defence—the plaintiff now opposing the proposed limitations defence, which plaintiff