Todd Robinson

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to pay a $40,000 costs award, which was granted following a successful summary judgment motion, and to strike the plaintiff's defence to counterclaim if payment was not made.

They also sought to stay the plaintiff's pending summary judgment motion against their counterclaim.

The court lacked jurisdiction to stay the plaintiff's summary judgment motion.

The primary issue was whether the costs award was automatically stayed under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given a pending appeal of the underlying summary judgment on the merits.

The court found the costs award inextricably connected to the judgment under appeal and thus captured by the automatic stay.

Alternatively, the court found the costs award stayed by the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal costs in the Court of Appeal.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court applied a contextual analysis, considering the Reid factors (length of delay, explanation, inadvertence, promptness, prejudice) as affirmed by H.B. Fuller Company.

The court found the delay was not inordinate or unexplained, noting contributions to delay from both parties and the plaintiff's ongoing intent to pursue the action.

It also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, attributing alleged prejudice (lost documents, audio recordings, witness contact) to the defendant's own lack of diligence in preserving evidence and complying with rules.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and a new timetable for remaining steps was ordered.

The defendant, Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), moved to dismiss the plaintiff David Smith's action for delay and breaches of a trial timetable order in a construction lien reference.

The court found that a motion to dismiss for delay under Rule 27.01(1)(c) was inconsistent with the Construction Lien Act's statutory timelines.

It also determined that the trial timetable order was not peremptory, and Smith's breaches, while not condoned, did not amount to intentional or contumelious conduct warranting dismissal.

The court had already imposed sanctions by barring certain evidence.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the trial was rescheduled with further directions regarding evidence admissibility.

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of solicitor-client privileged communications and documents related to the plaintiff's decision to appeal a prior Master's decision.

The Master, however, determined that the motion was "in an appeal" and therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear it under Rule 37.02(2)(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master rejected arguments that parties could confer jurisdiction by consent or that a motion to quash an appeal was separate from the appeal itself.

The motion was adjourned to be heard by a judge.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to attend examination for discovery, and the plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to compel answers to undertakings.

The substantive issues were resolved by agreement, leaving only the issue of costs.

The court found that both parties' litigation approach was disproportionate to the issues in dispute, especially given the simplified procedure action.

Despite settlement offers, the parties could not agree on a minor costs amount.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered that each party bear their own costs for these motions.