Barbara Opalinski

The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had sued a nightclub within the limitation period after falling from an elevated dance floor but only later added the landlord after discovering during examinations for discovery that the landlord participated in the design and construction of the stage.

The court considered the discoverability provisions under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the extent of reasonable pre-discovery investigation required of plaintiff’s counsel in occupiers’ liability claims.

The court held that the plaintiff was not required to seek information from adverse parties before discovery where those parties had no obligation to provide it.

The limitation period began when the plaintiff first learned of the landlord’s involvement during discovery, rendering the action timely.

In corporate litigation involving a tavern business, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their statement of claim and for an order compelling a further and better affidavit of documents and production prior to examinations for discovery.

The defendants brought a cross‑motion for leave to amend their defence and counterclaim.

The court held that allegations in a statement of claim generally do not constitute “admissions” within the meaning of Rule 51.05 and therefore the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments were governed by Rule 26.01.

Leave to amend was granted subject to minor clarifying revisions and payment of limited “costs thrown away,” rendering the defendants’ motion moot.

On the production motion, the court criticized both parties for failing to comply with Rule 29.1 discovery planning obligations and ordered limited additional production while refusing broader relief without prejudice pending a discovery plan and examinations.