Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-1500-0000

DATE: 2023 12 18

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton, Ontario L9T 1Y7

RE:

Tritan Inc., Plaintiff/Responding Party

-and-

Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 472, Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 490 and Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 500, Defendants/Moving Parties

BEFORE:

C. Chang J.

COUNSEL:

C. Kopach and S. Gaudreau, for the Plaintiff/Responding Party

A Casalinuovo, for the Defendants/Moving Parties

HEARD:

December 18, 2023 (in writing)

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Further to my endorsement dated November 27, 2023 in Court File No. CV-21-876-0000 (wherein the moving parties are the applicants), the moving parties have filed a supplementary motion record containing a fresh as amended notice of motion using a different court file number (wherein they are the defendants) and a supplementary affidavit. They have also filed a revised draft order.

[2] The moving parties provide no explanation for the mid-motion switch between court file numbers and none is evident from any of the supplementary materials filed. I am nonetheless prepared to proceed with this motion in the current (i.e., switched) court file number; however, based on the materials filed, I remain unprepared to grant any of the relief sought.

[3] Although the moving parties have followed some of my directions respecting the rectification of deficiencies in their proffered materials, they have failed to rectify all of them and bafflingly appear to have decided to add more.

[4] Among other things, of the provided sample of three parcel registers per claimed lien (which sampling, in and of itself, is not objectionable), the moving parties decided that the inclusion of incomplete documents was somehow acceptable. In addition, each of the two separate consents exhibited to the supplementary affidavit expressly refers to a draft order “found at Schedule “A” hereto”, but there are no such schedules attached. Furthermore, although those two consents are entirely different (they are in separate court file numbers and refer to different relief), the email messages from the plaintiff’s counsel purportedly authorizing the defendants’ counsel to execute those separate consents on his behalf are actually just duplicates of the exact same email message. There are also spelling and other errors in three of the seven paragraphs that comprise the supplementary affidavit.

[5] To top all of that off, the proffered revised draft order expressly references three different schedules that are neither attached to it nor otherwise locatable anywhere.

[6] I had thought the admonishments in my November 27, 2023 endorsement respecting the proper discharge counsel’s duty to be adequately perspicuous and stentorian. However, it appears that they have been received with insufficient lucidity and/or resonance, as the slapdash approach endures.

[7] Perhaps some measure of sanction is required to turn this tide. Perhaps that is unduly harsh. Perhaps this endorsement will adequately convey the applicable message. Perhaps that is overly optimistic. Whatever the specific solution may be to this specific problem, I repeat: counsel must do better.

[8] The moving parties are to forthwith file the following:

a. a proper and complete consent to the draft order sought, which consent is to refer to the current court file number (i.e., CV-21-1500-0000) and is to be executed directly (i.e., not via email authorization) by both counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants; and

b. a proper and complete draft order.

[9] The above constitutes the moving parties’ final opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in their motion materials. I suggest that they not squander it.

[10] I remain seized of this motion.

C. Chang J.

Date: December 18, 2023