Brian I. Monteiro

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce an adverse costs insurance policy (ACP) for inspection under Rule 30.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs had disclosed the existence and amount of the coverage but refused to produce the policy itself.

The court dismissed the motion, distinguishing previous case law because the ACP in this case was a blanket policy held by the plaintiffs' law firm, not the plaintiffs themselves.

The court found that producing the law firm's policy raised issues of solicitor-client privilege and that the policy was not within the possession, control, or power of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s order dismissing the action for delay and to extend and validate service of the statement of claim.

The court applied a contextual approach considering the Reid factors, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, motion delay, and prejudice.

The court found the plaintiff had provided an adequate explanation for the delay in attempting to locate and serve the defendant, and accepted counsel’s evidence that the failure to take additional steps earlier was inadvertent.

The court also found the defendant’s insurer had early notice of the claim, mitigating any presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of the limitation period.

The dismissal order was set aside and the time for service extended, with service validated.