W.A. Kyle

The defendant moved to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired and to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The plaintiff conceded the lien had expired but opposed the dismissal of its joined contract claim.

The court declared the lien expired and vacated the registrations but refused to dismiss the contract claim, finding insufficient evidence of prejudice or undue delay solely attributable to the plaintiff.

The contract claim was permitted to continue as an ordinary action under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence due to his failure to pay a $100,000 costs award from a previous unsuccessful motion and his ongoing non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction.

The defendant argued impecuniosity and invoked protections against self-incrimination to justify his refusal to answer questions about his finances.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding he failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure and improperly used self-incrimination protections to avoid answering proper questions.

The court granted the motion and struck the statement of defence with prejudice.

The plaintiffs in four related fraud actions brought motions seeking various procedural relief against the defendant, an undischarged bankrupt, including validation of service, authorization for future email service, and the fixing of a timetable.

The court dispensed with mandatory mediation on consent but declined to issue a blanket order for email service or to fix a timetable, finding such relief premature.

Service of the statements of claim on the defendant was validated effective the date of the motion hearing.

Relief regarding a co-defendant was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of attempted service.