S. Sviergula

The Brisson defendants brought a motion seeking to reinstate Christian Pilon and Charron Langlois S.R.L. as defendants to their counterclaim, to determine costs thrown away for amendments, and to compel disclosure of certain unredacted documents.

The court granted leave to amend the defence and counterclaim, ordered the reinstatement of both Christian Pilon and Charron Langlois S.R.L. as defendants to the counterclaim, and ordered the production of unredacted partnership agreements, a share purchase agreement, and Christian Pilon's 2015 T4/income tax return/notice of assessment.

Banking records were ordered with appropriate redactions.

The court declined to order costs thrown away, finding it unnecessary at this stage, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,000 all-inclusive to the Brisson defendants, noting the moving parties' excessive motion record and unnecessary cross-examination.

Following a successful motion setting aside an administrative dismissal and permitting amendments to the statement of claim, the court addressed costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining substantive relief on the underlying motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and applied the Rule 57 factors, emphasizing that defendants opposing administrative dismissal motions may face costs exposure depending on the evidentiary record and circumstances.

The court found the moving party’s request reasonable and rejected arguments that insurer involvement should preclude costs.

Costs were fixed at an all‑inclusive partial indemnity amount of $12,500 payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal for delay and sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a negligence and breach of contract action arising from engineering services related to sewer system upgrades.

The court applied the contextual approach governing the setting aside of administrative dismissals, considering factors such as the explanation for delay, prejudice, and the intention to proceed with the action.

The court accepted that the failure to meet the set-down deadline resulted from inadvertence by counsel and that the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for litigation delays in a complex, document-heavy matter.

The plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of a limitation period.

Leave to amend was largely granted as the amendments primarily particularized existing claims, though certain allegations relating to an earlier environmental study report constituted a potential new cause of action and were allowed subject to the defendant’s right to raise a limitation defence.