1This motion by the defendants to strike portions of the plaintiff’s pleadings arises in the context of an Action brought by plaintiff 2461351 Ontario Inc. against the Chief Building Official for the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan (“Township”) and the Corporation of the Township. The plaintiff seeks declarations as well as damages against the Township for bad faith conduct and negligence in issuing compliance orders for the plaintiff’s failure to apply for a building permit which adversely affected the plaintiff’s ability to operate a chip truck. The plaintiff claims the chip wagon was not a building and therefore, did not require a building permit.

2The Director of the plaintiff company is Ikuyo Higuchi. Her spouse, Ilkyoung Kim, is an employee of the company. Mr. Kim filed an affidavit in support of the plaintiff company’s position on this motion.

3The defendants, the moving parties, seek an order to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Amended Reply on the grounds that these paragraphs refer to settlement discussions.

4The plaintiff argues that this motion is ill-conceived for several reasons. First, the time to complete the motion expired based on the timetable ordered by James J. on October 16, 2023, on consent of the parties. Second, the impugned paragraphs are neither inadmissible nor subject to settlement privilege. Third, the defendants have put into issue the limitation defence in their Amended Statement of Defence and, consequently, even if the impugned paragraphs refer to settlement discussions, they are necessary for the plaintiff to address the limitation defence.

5The issues to be decided are:

[a] Is the defendant out of time to bring this motion to strike?

[b] If not, should paragraph 50 of the plaintiff’s Amended Amended Statement of Claim and paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 7(a), and 8 of the plaintiff’s Amended Reply be struck or amended pursuant to Rule 25.11 and Rule 49.06(1) because of reference to settlement discussions?

History of the Proceedings

6The history of the proceedings is set out in another motion decision of McNamara J. of May 24, 2019. Below, I summarize key paragraphs from that decision as well as other relevant facts on the history