The following excerpt is from Kowalyshyn v Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., 2016 ONSC 3819 (CanLII):
In the carriage motion in Sharma v. Timminco Ltd., supra at para. 90, I stated: On this motion, both law firms raised issues about the comparative merits and demerits of the pleadings, legal theories, and strategic battle plans of their rival. I am not to be taken as scolding them for this approach, but such an approach to a carriage motion puts the court in a difficult position because at this point in the respective proceedings, without hearing from the defendants, it is inappropriate, and, practically speaking, not possible to say much about: (a) the substantive merits of the competing theories and their chances of success; (b) substantive legal weaknesses in the causes of action and theories advanced; (c) whether the court would certify either action as a class proceeding ...
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.