William Parker

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add allegations that the defendants’ litigation conduct, including alleged delay in producing privileged documents, constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and warranted punitive damages.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the test for allowing amendments, including whether the proposed claims were tenable at law.

The court held that no fiduciary duty exists between opposing parties during the conduct of litigation in the adversarial system and that litigation conduct alone cannot constitute an independent actionable wrong supporting punitive damages.

Alleged delay in document production is addressed through costs, not substantive claims.

The proposed amendments were therefore not legally tenable and were refused, though certain limited trial questions concerning knowledge of competing intellectual property claims were permitted.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice in order to pursue substantially higher damages.

The action originally sought damages within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, but the plaintiff later asserted losses exceeding $400,000 arising from the repossession of a leased truck and resulting business losses and health consequences.

The court considered the principles governing transfers from Small Claims Court, including the court’s inherent jurisdiction to permit a transfer where appropriate.

Relying on authorities addressing when a plaintiff may pursue the claim in its “real dimensions,” the court held that the circumstances justified a transfer despite the plaintiff’s earlier choice of forum.

The motion was granted, but costs were awarded to the defendant because the need for the motion arose from the plaintiff’s own procedural error.