T. Markovic

Following the release of reasons dismissing the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence, the self-represented defendant communicated with the court to claim the motion had been withdrawn during submissions.

The court issued supplementary reasons clarifying that the motion was not withdrawn, but rather the relief sought was amended.

The court also noted that the defendant's indirect communication with the court breached Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to the defendant's failure to pay over $49,000 in prior costs awards.

The defendant argued he had attempted to pay by monthly installments, which the plaintiff refused after an initial payment.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the defendant's conduct did not yet warrant the severe remedy of striking his pleading.

However, the court refused to order a payment plan and imposed a peremptory 30-day deadline for the defendant to pay the outstanding costs in full, failing which the plaintiff could renew the motion to strike.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e), arguing the plaintiff's claim for a one-half interest in their property based on proprietary estoppel was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff cross-moved to strike the defendants' affidavits and opposed their motion to amend their pleadings to add a limitations defence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motions, allowed the defendants to amend their pleadings, and granted the motion for security for costs, finding the plaintiff's claim lacked practical merit and her conduct in the litigation was vexatious.