Todd J. Burke

The moving party brought an application seeking dismissal of the respondent’s action concerning leasehold property.

At the hearing, counsel for the respondent requested an adjournment citing prolonged illness and medical incapacity.

The court reviewed the procedural history, noting repeated adjournments, failure to comply with filing deadlines, and unpaid costs previously ordered against the respondent.

Despite expressing significant concern about counsel’s conduct and lack of diligence, the court granted the adjournment due to the medical circumstances.

The adjournment was subject to strict conditions including substantial indemnity costs, compliance with a new timetable, production of updated medical documentation, and a requirement that alternate counsel be retained if counsel remained unable to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking particulars of allegations in an amended statement of claim relating to copyright infringement in computer software.

The court held that the allegations, together with the particulars already provided, were not bald and that the defendants bore the onus of establishing that the requested particulars were not within their knowledge and were necessary to plead a defence.

The only evidence filed was an affidavit from the defendants’ lawyers, which the court found insufficient to satisfy that burden.

The court declined to exercise its discretion under Rule 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order particulars.

The motion was dismissed with costs, subject to a temporary stay permitting the defendants to file further affidavit evidence and potentially have the motion return.