Brian Pickard

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver and owner, which was administratively dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff later commenced a second action against the lessee of the vehicle.

The lessee moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the administrative dismissal of the first action.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the lessee's identity was not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff received correspondence from the insurer.

However, the court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal, finding an inordinate and unexplained delay that prejudiced the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against several physicians and a hospital following the plaintiff's development of compartment syndrome after hand surgery.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute the name of one anesthesiologist for another, claiming misnomer.

The proposed defendant anesthesiologist brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the separate action against him as statute-barred.

The court dismissed the misnomer motion, finding the plaintiffs made a strategic decision rather than a true naming error.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts to discover her claim against the anesthesiologist more than two years before commencing the action.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal order for delay under Rule 37.14.

The action, arising from a 2007 slip and fall, had been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to set it down for trial by the deadline ordered at a previous status hearing.

The Master applied the four-part Reid test.

Although the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the delay or show inadvertence in missing the deadline, they moved promptly to set aside the order and rebutted the presumption of prejudice.

The Master found no actual prejudice to the defendants and granted the motion, allowing the action to proceed on a strict timetable.