A. Chan

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The statement of claim was issued in October 2019 but not served until October 2024, nearly four years after the deadline.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the extensive delay, which involved multiple changes in legal representation and a deliberate decision not to serve the claim in 2023.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice due to faded memories, lost evidence, and the inability to conduct timely medical assessments.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, Planet Paper Box Group Inc., sought to extend an ex parte interim injunction against its former sales representative, Mary McEwan, to restrain her from contacting customers and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the initial ex parte motion was not urgent and that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, particularly regarding the source of its information and the defendant's actual employer.

The court also ruled that the affidavit evidence based on information and belief was inadmissible due to the lack of specified sources, thereby eroding the evidentiary basis for the injunction.

The applicant, Helen Wong, brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add three new defendants, including G4S, after the presumptive limitation period had expired.

Wong had suffered a slip and fall injury and initially sued the condominium corporation and its snow removal contractor.

New information, received after the limitation period, suggested G4S and another entity might also be liable for snow and ice removal.

G4S opposed the motion, arguing Wong failed to exercise due diligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that Wong had conducted reasonable investigations and that the incident report provided by G4S did not indicate their responsibility for exterior snow/ice removal, thus the discoverability principle applied to extend the limitation period.

The appellant, the sole shareholder of a bankrupt hotel, appealed a vesting order and an order approving the sale of the hotel's assets by a court-appointed receiver.

The appellant argued that the receiver failed to disclose the identity of the principals behind the purchaser, which tainted the sale process.

The purchaser brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was moot because the vesting order had already been registered on title under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal held that once a vesting order is registered on title without a stay, its attributes as a court order are spent and it becomes a conveyance, rendering any appeal from the order moot.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the identity of the purchaser's principals was not material to the receiver's sale process.