The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they pleaded facts protected by settlement privilege.
The defendant brought a cross-motion to amend the pleading.
The court granted leave for the interlocutory motion under the Construction Act.
The court declined to make a pre-emptive ruling on the admissibility of the communications at the pleadings stage, noting the factual dispute over whether they were 'without prejudice' settlement discussions or efforts to mitigate ongoing contractual issues.
The court struck the impugned paragraph but allowed the defendant's proposed amendment, which focused on the plaintiff's knowledge rather than the settlement proposal itself.
