«Applied Discovery Adds to Its Talent Pool Main «Da Silva Moore»
Defendants Oppose Motion to Recuse»
The Defendants opposed the motion.
Not exact matches
In
opposing the
motion to reinstate, the
Defendant's insurer says delay has prejudiced them as there is no witness for discovery.
The plaintiffs lawyers
opposed the
motion, but also complained that if the
defendants had shown the video earlier, they wouldn't have invested 21 months worth of litigation time, cost, doctors fees and judicial resources.
On a
motion opposing the long arm jurisdiction of the Ontario court, the
defendants attempted to rely on Van Breda to extend its holding beyond assuming jurisdiction to decide a case on the merits.
The
Defendant's
opposed this and brought a
motion to force the case into Rule 68 saying it was clearly worth less than $ 100,000 and that the rule was mandatory in these circumstances.
The
defendant later represented himself and did not attend to
oppose the plaintiff's
motion for default judgment.
Her recent notable decisions include Ismail v. Nitty's Food Services Limited, 2014 ONSC 4140, where she successfully
opposed a plaintiff's
motion to add further
defendants to the action beyond the limitation period, and Chen and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, FSCO A13 - 006689, where she successfully brought a preliminary issue hearing to dismiss an applicant's action as a result of his failure to attend insurer examinations.
In the example in my previous post, no affidavit of documents was delivered, no responding materials were prepared, and counsel for the
defendant did not show up for the
motion (having been instructed to not
oppose).