In this decision, the Court granted the Defendant an extension to file its Statement of Defence and two Actions relating to the same dispute were consolidated by consent. The Consent Order provided that the Defendant was not required to file a Statement of Defence but imposed a deadline if the Defendant elected to do so (the “Deadline”). The Defendant did not file a Statement of Defence before the Deadline. At the start of Trial, the Defendant applied to extend the Deadline. The Court granted the extension pursuant to Rule 13.5, which allows the Court to extent or shorten time periods for filing a Statement of Defence.

One issue that arose during Trial was whether one of the Plaintiff’s experts should be allowed to testify. The Defendant objected to the Plaintiff’s expert because the Defendant had not had an opportunity to question the expert pursuant to Rule 5.18. The Court determined that the only suitable remedy was to bar the expert from testifying. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had other experts testifying and that the denial did not jeopardize the Plaintiff’s ability to meet its burden of proof.

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and granted the Defendant’s counterclaim against the Plaintiff. The Court awarded costs to the Defendant pursuant to Column 4 of Schedule C of the Rules.