Adam Huff

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute the plaintiff's professional corporation for the plaintiff personally, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The action arose from a fire loss claim under an insurance policy.

The court found that naming the plaintiff personally rather than his professional corporation was a misnomer.

Applying the test for misnomer, the court granted the motion, noting that the defendants were aware of the proper plaintiff from the outset and suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to substitute the underwriter, Industrial Alliance, for the originally named defendants (the claims administrator and the policy name) under the doctrine of misnomer.

The plaintiff had purchased travel medical insurance and was denied coverage for a $90,000 US medical bill.

The court found that the plaintiff clearly intended to sue the issuer of the policy and that Industrial Alliance would have known it was the intended defendant upon reading the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The plaintiffs were entirely successful on a motion to add a proposed defendant after the expiry of the limitation period.

Both sides sought costs of the motion.

The proposed defendant argued that the plaintiffs' conscious decision not to add him within the limitation period caused the motion.

The court found that the proposed defendant's insurer chose to oppose the motion rather than pleading the limitation period and bringing a summary judgment motion, effectively giving itself two chances to defeat the claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, fixed at the exact amount the proposed defendant had claimed as reasonable costs if he had been successful.

An applicant sought enforcement of Letters Rogatory issued by a United States district court requesting video testimony from Ontario residents in aid of a Florida civil action concerning alleged unsolicited fax advertisements.

The respondents argued the request amounted to a fishing expedition and noted a partial stay of discovery in the underlying action.

Applying the six‑factor test for enforcement of foreign letters rogatory, the court held that the requested evidence was likely relevant, potentially necessary for trial, and not otherwise obtainable.

The court found the request was not contrary to public policy and was not unduly burdensome.

The application to compel examination under oath was granted.

Following a discovery-related motion concerning production of documents and claims of solicitor‑client privilege, the defendant sought costs exceeding $55,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, who was self‑represented, had largely failed on the underlying motion, obtaining production of only one document and clarification of indexing in the affidavit of documents.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the losing party, the court concluded the amount sought was excessive.

The court reduced the recoverable fees to $25,000 plus HST and limited disbursements.

Costs were ordered payable in any event of the cause.