Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-00515767

DATE: 20211216

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Dr. Christopher Chen, Plaintiff

AND: Fariba Mahdi, Kamran Mahdi, Carson Dunlop & Associates Ltd., The City of Toronto and Tarion Warranty Corporation, Defendants

BEFORE: D. Wilson J.

COUNSEL: Micheal G. Simaan, for the Plaintiff Robert W. Calderwood, for the Defendants, Fariba Mahdi and Kamran Mahdi Jessica Warwick, for the Defendant, Carson Dunlop & Associates Ltd. Alison Barclay and Alana Reitapple Blitstein, for the Defendant, The City of Toronto Michael Owsiany, for the Defendant, Tarion Warranty Corporation

HEARD: December 15, 2021 (Teleconference)

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This action appeared in trial scheduling court where a fixed trial date was sought. Counsel submitted a timetable for further steps which suggested that the matter was not ready for trial. As a result, I convened a case conference, which was held today.

[2] I was advised this action was commenced in 2014 and is a claim for breach of contract and negligence as a result of the construction of a dwelling. The examinations for discovery of all parties were held in April 2019. No expert reports have been delivered by any party. I was advised by counsel for the City of Toronto that a “companion action” was commenced in 2016 against various parties stemming from the claims being made by the Plaintiff in this action. No order for trial together has been obtained and in fact, the pleadings are not even complete in that action. No productions have been made and no examinations for discovery have been held. In short, apart from issuing the claim, nothing has transpired on that action at all. The Defendants will attend the premises for an inspection some time before May 31, 2022.

[3] In response to my inquiries, I was advised that only very recently has the Plaintiff answered the undertakings from the discoveries that took place in 2019. Defence counsel stated that they have not considered whether or not a motion for refusals will be necessary; they will review the voluminous documentation that was just delivered by the Plaintiff and determine whether or not a motion will be necessary.

[4] It is unclear to me why an action that was started in 2014 is at the stage this action is. I do not know why counsel attended trial scheduling court seeking to fix a trial date when this action is not ready for trial. Counsel for the Defendants Mahdi indicated he felt compelled to attend trial scheduling court. When counsel for the Plaintiff set the action down for trial and signed the solicitor’s certificate indicating the action was ready for trial, all counsel should have ensured the interlocutory matters had been attended to; they did not. Motions for refusals from the discovery are being contemplated, documentary production may or may not be complete, further discovery is necessary and no expert reports have been delivered although the parties plan on retaining experts and serving reports. Further, the companion action has sat dormant since it was issued. This action is not ready for trial and it will be struck from the trial list. When the various matters have been attended to and the case is ready to fix a trial date, counsel are directed to contact the trial coordinator to schedule a date for trial scheduling court.

Date: December 16, 2021