A. Graham

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality after slipping and falling on ice.

The initial notices of claim provided to the municipality inaccurately described the location of the fall.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred due to the deficient notice.

The court found that while the issue of prejudice to the municipality was a genuine issue for trial, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the deficient notice, as he did not provide evidence from family members who were present at the time of the fall.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for injuries sustained during an assault at a concert.

The defendant Inneractive was added to the action based on information from co-defendants, but it was later determined Inneractive was not providing security on the date of the incident.

Inneractive brought a motion for summary judgment and costs after the plaintiffs circulated a consent dismissal that went unanswered.

The court granted the dismissal but reduced Inneractive's claimed costs because the motion was premature.

The court ordered the plaintiffs and the co-defendants to share Inneractive's costs equally due to the co-defendants' delay in clarifying the security arrangements.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to schedule discoveries and awarded the plaintiffs costs for that motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute two identified individuals carrying on business as a security automation service in place of a fictitiously named defendant, “John Doe.” The motion arose from water damage allegedly caused by a defective sprinkler head following inspection of the sprinkler system by contractors retained by a security company.

The proposed defendants argued that the amendment would improperly add parties after expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held the amendment constituted correction of a misnomer because the statement of claim clearly described the technicians involved in the inspection and the “litigation finger” was directed at them from the outset.

As no non‑compensable prejudice was shown and the action remained at an early stage, leave to amend was granted.