This Action was a part of a larger set of actions (the “Case Managed Actions”) for which Justice Marion serves as the Case Management Justice (“CMJ”). All parties filing application in the Case Managed Actions were required to obtain the CMJ’s permission through the Fiat Process. This Decision addressed numerous Fiat Requests in four related actions.

One of the Defendants, Liliana Kostic (“Ms. Kostic”), sought permission to apply to strike numerous paragraphs in an Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”) of Piikani Nation (“Piikani”), arguing that unauthorized modifications, including corrected typos, meant Piikani failed to comply with Rule 3.63, which required all amendments to be identified. Justice Marion refused permission. Since Piikani previously sought the Court’s approval to make amendments in 2018, Marion J. found Ms. Kostic’s request to be an abusive attempt to relitigate the 2018 Court Order. The Court also noted that the request would cause unnecessary delay and expense, inconsistent with Rule 1.2.

Ms. Kostic also sought permission to file a Notice to Co-Defendant against Raymond James (“RJL”) for contribution or indemnity. Because Rule 3.43 requires a notice claiming contribution to be filed and served within 20 days after the defendant files their statement of defence, and that window had passed, leave was required under Rule 13.5. The CMJ granted permission to for the leave Application, noting that factors such as the length and reason for the delay, potential prejudice, the merits of the claim, and the stage of the Action would need to be considered by the Judge hearing the Application within the Rule 13.5 framework.

Ms. Kostic further sought permission to apply for Summary Dismissal of all or part of an Action against her pursuant to Rule 7.3(1)(b) (“no merit”). Permission was refused. The Court found that it could not fairly resolve the matter summarily because issues such as fiduciary duty, contractual limitations, and concurrent personal liability raised genuine issues requiring a Trial, and pursuing a summary process would be disproportionate and inefficient under Rule 1.2. Marion J. remarked that it is far more expedient to move the matter to Trial.

Finally, for particulars, undertakings, interrogatories, and records, Marion J. allowed discovery-related Fiats but required strict discipline under Rule 5.2: requests must be confined to what was “relevant and material”, supported by precise schedules identifying each outstanding undertaking/interrogatory and the response status, and proven by evidence-only Affidavits (not omnibus argument). Existing discovery/expert deadlines were vacated so the parties could propose a consolidated plan and address Trial setting, consistent with Rule 1.2.

The Court noted that substantially successful parties are entitled to Costs and confirmed specific cost entitlements for each Fiat Request. Justice Marion’s decision applied various Rules, particularly emphasizing Rule 1.2 for efficiency and proportionality.