Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 FEBRUARY 2013

Legal Technology

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

A discussion on a decision relating on a motion to compel answers to undertakings in a home renovation case, where it was asknowledged that there was no formal discovery plan and no agreed upon deadline for answering undertakings.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

CASE LAW

Kariouk v. Pombo, 2012 ONSC 939 (CanLII)

This was a decision on a motion to compel answers to undertakings in a home renovation case. It was conceded that there was no formal discovery plan and no agreed upon deadline for answering undertakings. The primary issue of contention therefore was whether or not the motion was necessary. After the motion was launched, the majority of the undertakings were answered. At the time of the hearing, it was simply necessary to set a deadline for the remaining answers, to rule on the sufficiency of certain others and to deal with costs.

The court stated that the interplay between the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Professional Conduct, Principles of Civility and Professionalism and the relatively new requirement for formal discovery planning is important and that the attempt to use principles of civility to counter reliance on the rules of civil procedure required comment.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from