2 total
Motion to add defendants dismissed as statute-barred; leave to amend claim and extend service partially granted.
The plaintiff in a putative class action regarding unfulfilled solar panel installation contracts brought a motion to amend the statement of claim, add 17 new defendants (including the IESO), and extend the time for service on several existing defendants.
The court dismissed the motion to add the IESO and 15 Solart-associated entities, finding the claims against them were statute-barred as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims more than two years prior.
The court partially granted leave to amend the claim against existing defendants, striking certain proposed paragraphs that improperly pleaded evidence or lacked material facts.
The court granted the extension of time for service on several defendants, finding no actual prejudice to the defence.
Defamation appeal dismissed; hotel manager's log entry protected by qualified privilege despite inaccurate intoxication claim.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her defamation claim against a hotel and its night manager.
The claim arose from a log entry made by the manager describing the appellant and her husband as 'very intoxicated' and belligerent during a late-night dispute over a hotel room.
The trial judge found that while the appellant was not intoxicated, the description of her belligerent behaviour was justified and the log entry was protected by qualified privilege.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions on justification, qualified privilege, and the absence of malice.
