S. Wolpert

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant and the imposition of a discovery plan.

The court declined to impose a discovery plan, directing the parties to agree on terms.

The court also dismissed the motion for a further and better affidavit of documents without prejudice, finding the plaintiff's request was based on speculation and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation prior to examinations for discovery.

In the context of a pending summary judgment motion for a wrongful dismissal action, the parties brought four procedural motions.

The plaintiffs sought leave to file additional documents and a supplementary affidavit, and a declaration that they could attend each other's cross-examinations.

The defendant sought an order compelling the production of privileged communications.

The Master granted the plaintiffs' motions, finding they met the test for filing additional evidence and that there was insufficient risk of evidence tailoring to justify an exclusion order.

The defendant's motion for privileged documents was dismissed as there was no deemed waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to remove the defendant corporation's counsel of record, who was also the sole officer and director of the corporation and a key participant in the employment negotiations at issue.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the plaintiff's exhibits based on settlement privilege and to allow the counsel to act as an agent if removed.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that any privilege had been waived.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel, holding that while his status as a potential witness alone did not disqualify him, his demonstrated personal attachment to the litigation compromised his impartiality as an advocate.

The court also denied leave for him to act as an agent for the corporation.

Following a commercial receivership application, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs.

The moving party had been substantially successful in enforcing its security and was presumptively entitled to costs against the debtor respondents.

Relying on the security agreement, the court held that the contractual provision requiring payment of “solicitor and own client costs” justified an award on a substantial indemnity basis against the corporate debtors and one individual debtor.

However, a separate individual respondent who was not party to the security agreement was ordered to pay costs only on a partial indemnity basis.

Mortgagee respondents who successfully narrowed the scope of the receivership order were ordered to bear their own costs in relation to the issues between them and the applicant.

The plaintiff, an involuntary creditor due to overdrawn accounts, sought the appointment of a receiver over the corporate debtors' receivables and the individual debtors' real property after the debtors defaulted on a demand loan.

The motion was opposed by the debtors and by prior mortgagees who argued the receiver's mandate should not extend to the real property.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver over both the receivables and the real property to ensure a fair, transparent, and efficient realization process for all creditors, while respecting the mortgagees' priorities.