Court File and Parties

Lindsay Court File No.: CV-22-113 Date: 2024-02-12 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Kenneth Mark Biddle, Plaintiff And: Jasmyn San Jose, Defendant

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.E. Charney

Counsel: Joseph Doris, Counsel for the Plaintiff Romesh Hettiarachchi, Counsel for the Defendant

Heard: In-Writing

Endorsement

[1] On January 19, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff requested a case conference in this matter to request the Court’s assistance to establish a timetable under Rule 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. In particular, the Plaintiff seeks to establish a timetable for the Defendant to serve her Affidavit of Documents and for the parties to attend a one day examination for discovery.

[2] On January 26, 2024, I advised the parties as follows:

Prior to the scheduling of a telephone case conference, the parties are requested to provide the Court with their respective proposed timetables for the service of the Defendant’s Affidavit of Documents and examinations for discovery.

Counsel for the Plaintiff is asked to provide his proposed timetable by February 1, 2024. Counsel for the Defendant is asked to provide his position with respect to the Plaintiff’s proposed timetable by February 8, 2024.

Once the proposed timetables are received, a telephone case conference will be scheduled.

[3] The Plaintiff provided his proposed timetable on January 26, 2024. On February 9, 2024, at 5:04 p.m., counsel for the Defendant advised the Court that his client has advised him that they will be representing themselves. He has yet to receive a Notice of Intention to Act in Person from his client.

[4] The Plaintiff’s proposed timetable is:

• The Defendant shall deliver her Affidavit of Documents by February 29, 2024.
• The Plaintiff and Defendant shall attend an Examination for Discovery on one of the following dates: April 15, 2024, April 22, 2024, or May 6, 2024.

[5] Since this action is under the Simplified Procedure, the Examinations for Discovery should take one day to complete, with 3 hours of examination for each party.

[6] In the absence of any alternative proposal from the Defendant, there is no purpose to holding a Case Conference. The decision to act in person at this stage appears to be a delay tactic by the Defendant.

[7] Accordingly, the timetable proposed by the Plaintiff is approved, the parties shall follow it.

[8] The parties may, by written agreement, amend this timetable in accordance with Rule 3.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

Justice R.E. Charney Date: February 12, 2024