In the case of Khatib v Goeasy Ltd. dated September 8, 2023, the plaintiff, Shadi Khatib, sought leave to bring a motion for discovery against six former employees of the defendant, Goeasy Ltd., related to their termination and the alleged unfair treatment of the plaintiff in comparison to them. This matter had been discussed in court, and the plaintiff had initially abandoned his request for leave to compel answers from the defendant's representative. The defendant had refused to provide information about the termination of other employees, citing irrelevance and settlement privilege. The court reviewed the situation and found that the plaintiff had been aware of the defendant's refusal to provide information for over two years before setting the case for trial. The court ruled that there had been no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances justifying the granting of leave for further discovery. Additionally, it was noted that the plaintiff had deliberately chosen to set the matter for trial despite being offered an opportunity to pursue a different course of action. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion. Furthermore, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's partial indemnity costs of $7,500 within 30 days of the court's decision, as the defendant had emerged as the successful party in the matter.