Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-00091988-0000 Date: December 2, 2025

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Request Office Services Inc. v. Mullai

BEFORE: Associate Justice Perron

COUNSEL:

David Debenham, for the plaintiff Email: ddebenham@lmrlawyers.com Phone: 613-696-1313

Nicholas Mester for the defendants Email: nicholas@paynelaw.ca Phone: 416-477-4529 ext 223

HEARD: December 2, 2025

CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT

[1] This case conference concerns this action and is further to my endorsement of October 28, 2025.

[2] The purpose of the conference was to determine if the parties were able to resolve the production issues which is the subject of the upcoming motion scheduled by the defendants for March 24, 2026.

[3] On October 28th, I told the parties that if they were unable to resolve the issues by the next case conference, I would provide directions on the next steps. In particular, I told them that I would determine whether the motion should be vacated and whether the parties should proceed to examinations for discovery.

[4] On November 9, 2025, the defendants requested that today's case conference be vacated because the parties had received the Order of Justice Firestone transferring the matter from Ottawa to Toronto.

[5] The plaintiff did not consent to vacate the case conference.

[6] I declined to vacate the case conference and directed that it proceed.

[7] The parties disagree on whether I have authority to make any decisions at this case conference in view of the transfer Order.

[8] The defendants rely on Rules 4.05(2) and 13.1.02(8) which provide that all further documents in this matter shall be filed in Toronto.

[9] The plaintiff relies on Rules 1.04 and 1.05 which promote the efficient administration of justice and takes the position that this Court can make decisions to provide for the orderly transition of the matter to Toronto.

[10] The plaintiff also relies on Rule 37.03 which provides that all motions must now take place in Toronto unless the Court orders otherwise, but that there is no equivalent rule governing the location of case conferences.

[11] I note that the motion requesting the transfer of the proceeding to Toronto was on consent of the parties. The defendants indicated that the motion materials were filed back in the Fall of 2024.

[12] The parties did not flag the transfer motion to me at the case conference in October 2025.

[13] Regarding next steps in the matter, the defendants agree that the March 2026 motion in Ottawa should now be vacated because all future motions should be heard in Toronto.

[14] However, the defendants continue to be of the position that they cannot proceed to examinations until the production issues are determined.

[15] The defendants' concerns about the efficiency of examinations are amplified in view of the plaintiff's proposed motion seeking to vary the production Order made by Associate Justice Fortier on June 17, 2024.

[16] The plaintiff has not yet scheduled that motion but has served a draft motion record. The motion would seek declarations that it has complied with the production Order to the extent that it is possible to do so, and to vary the Order to avoid a situation of contempt.

[17] That said, the plaintiff wants to proceed to examinations at the end of January as previously requested and as contemplated during the last case conference.

[18] In my view, there is nothing in the transfer Order or the Rules cited by the defendants that prevent me from proceeding with, and making orders at, this case conference.

[19] The issues to be determined today do not deal with filing further documents, nor do I seek to bind the Toronto Court on any future determinations.

[20] The purpose of today's case conference is for the Ottawa Court to finalize its determination of issues that are still pending before it to ensure as smooth a transition as possible of the matter to Toronto.

[21] Pursuant to Rule 50.13(6), I gave notice to the parties on October 28th that I would deal with certain issues today. No one raised concerns about my authority to do that even though they were well aware of the pending transfer motion.

[22] In addition, and although the transfer Order has now been issued, it will no doubt take a number of months for parties to have their next case conference(s) or motion(s) heard in Toronto.

[23] This action is more than 2 years old and has not progressed past the production stage. The parties are stuck at a roadblock where one party alleges they have complied with their disclosure obligations, and one party alleges that there is non-compliance.

[24] In my view, it will be more efficient if the parties proceed to examinations for discovery now rather than bring further motions. Any outstanding production issues can be canvassed at examinations, under oath, and undertakings can be requested for further documents.

[25] The production issues may resolve themselves during the course of the examinations and/or when answers to undertakings are provided. The motions may become moot.

[26] Should there continue to be production issues, or if there are improper objections or unanswered undertakings, a motion can then be brought to address all discovery issues.

[27] But even if such a motion is necessary, it would limit the number of motions in the action and the parties will have at least moved the matter along and completed examinations.

[28] In my view, this approach would also be a more efficient use of the Court's very limited resources.

[29] For other reasons discussed during the case conference today, I urged the parties not to schedule any further motions in this matter until they have completed examinations and delivered answers to undertakings.

[30] I provided my ruling to the parties during the case conference, and on consent, a timetable was established for next steps.

Order

This court orders as follows:

1- The defendants' motion scheduled for March 24, 2026 in Ottawa is hereby vacated on a without prejudice basis for it to be rescheduled, if necessary, in Toronto.

2- Discoveries of all parties in the main action and the counterclaim are to be completed by the end of March 2026. Tentative dates for some of the examinations have been set for February 11 and 12, 2026 and counsel shall confer to finalize the schedule for the examinations as soon as possible.

3- All undertakings shall be answered by the end of May 2026.

4- A case conference shall be held before Associate Justice Fortier on January 2, 2026 at 12:30 pm to settle the Order from the parties' previous attendance(s) before Her Honour.

5- There shall be no other hearings or Court attendances scheduled in Ottawa in this matter unless the Court orders otherwise. All future hearings and Court attendances shall be scheduled in Toronto.

6- This order can be varied by the parties on consent (except for Rule 48) or by order of an associate judge.

7- This endorsement has been signed electronically and is effective without further formality. It constitutes a timetable within the meaning of Rules 1.03 (1) and 3.04 and is also an order made under the authority of Rules 50.13 and 77.

Associate Justice Perron