S. Hennig

The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary timetable orders to extend the set down date for trial in an action concerning alleged manufacturing defects in water pipes.

The action had been delayed for several years, primarily due to the plaintiffs' failure to answer undertakings from discoveries.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, did not demonstrate inadvertence, failed to bring the motion promptly, and did not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a class action regarding alleged over-recovery of fuel surcharges by the defendant railway company brought a motion for documentary production and to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination.

The defendant had brought a motion for summary judgment based on narrow legal grounds, arguing that the Canada Transportation Act is a complete code and that the claims are statute-barred or disclose no cause of action.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motions, finding that the requested production and answers related to the factual issue of over-recovery, which was irrelevant to the purely legal issues raised in the defendant's summary judgment motion.

The court also accepted the defendant's evidence that the specific data requested by the plaintiff did not exist and would require complex, arbitrary allocation to create.