S. Inkol

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising from mould in their residential unit.

During the litigation, both sides brought procedural motions.

The defendants sought further disclosure and to schedule continued examinations for discovery, which was largely resolved on consent.

The plaintiff, Aparna Sanwalka, sought accommodations for her continued examination for discovery due to alleged mental health conditions, including receiving questions 48 hours in advance.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for accommodations, finding insufficient medical evidence to justify departing from the standard oral examination format under Rule 31.02.

The plaintiffs and the defendant Province brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery in an action concerning an assault on an inmate at a correctional facility.

The court ordered the Province to produce a redacted range plan, summaries of officer training and discipline, and an index of standing orders, balancing relevance with institutional security concerns.

The court dismissed the Province's motion to compel information about the plaintiff's brother's criminal and employment history, finding it irrelevant and disproportionate for assessing the plaintiff's hypothetical earning capacity.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from injuries sustained at a provincial park boat launch.

The moving party argued that the claim was barred because the plaintiff failed to comply with statutory notice requirements under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which requires notice within ten days for claims relating to the Crown’s ownership, occupation, possession, or control of property.

The court found that the claim clearly alleged breach of duties connected to property controlled by the Crown and therefore fell within the statute.

Because no timely notice was provided, the action was rendered a nullity by operation of statute.

The court rejected arguments that the claim fell outside the statute or could be reframed as another tort or contractual claim.