Unilin Beheer B.V. v. 6035558 Canada Inc., 2025 FC 1949
Justice Lafrenière - 2025-10-08
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Defendants submit that AJ Cotter made a reviewable error in law, or alternatively a palpable and overriding error, in scheduling further substantive steps in respect of the Defendants while the Security for Costs Motion was outstanding. ... For the following reasons, this motion is dismissed. ... Prior to bringing their Security for Costs Motion, the Defendants had proposed scheduling of next steps on specific dates, albeit dates different from what the Plaintiffs proposed. These dates were not contingent on the timing of a future motion for security for costs. ... This is certainly not a case where, as in Shipdock Amsterdam, the issue of security for costs was pending before the Court first. ... Given the procedural history, the substantial delays in the proceeding and the last-minute change of position by the Defendants, I conclude that it was reasonably open to AJ Cotter to order the parties to move forward with the long-outstanding discovery of documents while at the same time requiring the Defendants’ motion be perfected within short deadlines.
Decision relates to:
- T-116-19 - UNILIN BEHEER B.V. ET AL v. 6035558 CANADA INC. ET AL