In Way v. Schembri (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against an "order striking the appellants’ statement of defence in action CV-457-12 and dismissing their claim in action CV-42-11 for failure to comply with documentary disclosure obligations".
Here the court considers the use of R37.15 ['Motions - Jurisdiction and Procedure - Motions in a Complicated Proceeding or Series of Proceedings']:
[1] .... His order is discretionary and entitled to significant deference from this court.
[2] We see no error which would justify appellate interference. In this regard, we note that the motion judge had been appointed under rule 37.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, to hear all motions in these matters and was therefore well-positioned to determine the relief that should be granted. Although the appellants may now have produced the necessary documents, in our view, this is too little, too late, and we are not persuaded it would have affected the motion judge’s decision.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
