Ara Basmadjian

The defendant, Canadian National Railway Company, brought a motion to consolidate actions involving the plaintiff, Rose Sgambelluri, and two insurance companies.

The plaintiff conceded that the "gateway criteria" for consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure were met.

The court granted the motion, finding that consolidation would prevent inconsistent outcomes, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and promote judicial economy, with no true prejudice or delay to the plaintiff.

Costs of the motion were fixed against the plaintiff.

The appellant, Toronto Hydro, appealed a Master's decision granting the respondent leave to amend a third-party claim to add Toronto Hydro as a party after the apparent expiry of the limitation period.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle collision at an intersection where the traffic lights were not functioning due to a power outage.

The appellant argued the Master erred in applying the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act and misapprehended evidence regarding the respondent's due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's interpretation of the law and holding that her factual findings on discoverability were owed deference and supported by the evidence.

The defendant Kolesnik sought leave to commence a third-party claim against Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, which argued the limitation period had expired.

The court examined when Kolesnik ought reasonably to have discovered the claim, applying the test from Morrison v. Barzo.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the discovery date of the claim against Toronto Hydro, granting leave for the third-party claim to proceed, with Toronto Hydro permitted to plead its limitation period defence.

Costs were awarded to Kolesnik.

The defendants moved for an order awarding costs after the plaintiff discontinued its action.

The court found that the plaintiff's action was commenced without justification, was speculative, frivolous, and vexatious, and made serious unsubstantiated allegations against both defendants, including breaches of contractual and fiduciary obligations.

The court applied the principles of costs law and factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding that the plaintiff's conduct warranted a substantial indemnity award.

The motion for costs was granted, with specific amounts awarded to each defendant.