Key Applications and Decisions
- SP’s Application to Strike Evidence:
- Affidavit: SP sought to strike 103 paragraphs from RK's affidavit as irrelevant and speculative. The court declined, deeming them necessary for context.
- Third-Party Evidence: SP contested SD’s remote questioning due to procedural errors. The court struck SD's transcript for procedural non-compliance.
- Exhibit “L”: A Facebook post not disclosed in RK’s Affidavit of Records. The court excluded this exhibit under Rule 5.16.
- RK’s Application to Compel Document Production:
- Letter from SP’s Counsel: RK sought the production of a letter from SP’s counsel. The judge declined, asserting no prejudice as the letter was not read.
- Withheld Document: RK requested a document previously ruled irrelevant. The application was dismissed based on the prior ruling.
- SP’s Application to Compel RK’s Undertaking: SP's request for RK to produce written communications with SD was rendered moot due to the exclusion of SD’s transcript.
Costs
- Litigation Misconduct: Both sides accused each other of bad faith.
- Future Hearing: Costs to be discussed at the next court hearing on September 17, 2024.
Successful Party
- The document does not specify a single successful party for the entire case. The judge made decisions on individual applications:
- SP's Application to Strike Evidence: Partially successful, with some evidence struck.
- RK's Application to Compel Document Production: Mostly unsuccessful, as key documents were not compelled for production.
- SP's Application to Compel RK’s Undertaking: Rendered moot.
