Background: In the case between Kanata Utilities Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) and 1414610 Ontario Inc. o/a MAG Eastwood Construction, 2573262 Ontario Inc. o/a Eastwood Construction, Mario Grandinetti, John Grandinetti, Carlo Grandinetti, Lewis Grandinetti, Matthew Grandinetti, and Dylan Grandinetti (defendants/appellants), the appellants failed to comply with interlocutory orders and their documentary disclosure obligations. The Superior Court struck the appellants’ Statement of Defence and awarded costs to the respondent.

Procedural History: A motion was previously granted compelling the appellants to produce documents and attend examinations. The appellants did not comply with this order, leading to the respondent’s motion to strike the Statement of Defence.

Key Issues on Appeal:

1. Whether the motion judge erred in striking the Statement of Defence.
2. Whether the costs order was appropriate.

Court’s Findings:

• The motion judge acted correctly under Rules 30.08(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the appellants' non-compliance.
• The lengthy delay and deliberate non-compliance justified striking the Statement of Defence.
• The motion judge’s order was proportionate, given the appellants' multiple opportunities to comply.

Decision:

• Main Appeal: Dismissed. The court upheld the striking of the Statement of Defence.
• Costs Appeal: Allowed in part. Costs for the action reduced from $5,000 to $3,000 due to a calculation error.
• Costs of Appeal: Awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,500.

Conclusion: The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in the motion judge’s decision to strike the appellants' Statement of Defence and affirmed the decision with a minor adjustment to the costs awarded. The appeal was largely dismissed, underscoring the importance of compliance with court orders and procedural rules.