Adam J. Huff

The plaintiff, Isobel Kozey, brought a motion for leave to amend her personal injury claim to add Broadleaf Landscaping & Snow Removal Inc. and Triovest Realty Advisors Inc. as defendants, following a trip-and-fall incident.

Broadleaf opposed the motion, arguing the claim against it was statute-barred due to the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delayed discovery of Broadleaf's identity, establishing a triable issue regarding discoverability.

The court also dismissed Broadleaf's arguments of non-compensable prejudice and found it unnecessary to rule on the misnomer principle.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated attendant care and housekeeping benefits, leading to a settlement and release.

The release included a 'without prejudice' clause preserving the applicant's right to claim post-104 week benefits if determined to be catastrophically impaired.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue arguing the applicant was barred from claiming these benefits due to the limitation period and the settlement.

The arbitrator found the release clear and unambiguous, holding that it did not preclude the applicant from proceeding with his claim for post-104 week benefits.

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.

The appellants sued their former lawyer for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding his fee estimate, and sued his insurer, LPIC, as an accessory after the fact.

The motion judge struck the claim against LPIC for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and dismissed the action against the lawyer as an abuse of process, finding it was brought to provide leverage in a fee assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that no duty of care exists between an insurer and an adverse party, and that the action against the lawyer was an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her motion to add her co-plaintiff as a party defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant should have known of the co-plaintiff's potential liability years earlier when the statement of defence and counterclaim was delivered.

The motion to add the party was brought too late.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their 14-year-old medical malpractice action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the hearing judge properly applied the two-part test requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and no non-compensable prejudice.

The court agreed that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for a delay of almost 11 years since the delivery of the statement of defence.

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.