Alexander Voudouris

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and his law firm, failed to file responding evidence, a factum, or appear at the hearing.

The court found the claim deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts for the pleaded torts.

The motion was granted, the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the pleading and the plaintiffs' non-compliance with court orders.

The defendant brought a motion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff to attend a fourth defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended examinations with an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's orthopaedic surgeon had already provided extensive commentary and rebuttal to the plaintiff's physiatrist's report, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence explaining why a further examination by a physiatrist was necessary to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside Notices of Discontinuance previously filed against an insurer and the Superintendent of Financial Services in a motor vehicle accident action.

The discontinuances had been filed after another insurer accepted priority for accident benefits, leading the parties to believe it would also be responsible for uninsured motorist coverage.

Years later, that insurer reversed its position, creating uncertainty as to coverage and potential recovery.

The court held that although the discontinuances were not filed through inadvertence, they were based on a shared misapprehension of the factual circumstances regarding insurance responsibility.

Given the lack of significant prejudice to the former defendants and the risk of severe prejudice to the plaintiff, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the discontinuances.

The action was permitted to proceed against the insurer and the Superintendent.