Brian R. Goldfinger

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to its April 6, 2023, settlement approval for a minor plaintiff in a dog bite case.

This endorsement clarified the OHIP subrogated interest, approving a negotiated amount of $1,661.09, which included legal fees for the Ministry's interest.

It also reviewed the plaintiffs' disbursement list, disallowing certain items such as scanning, binding, and faxes, which were deemed standard office overhead, reducing the allowed disbursements from $2,608.44 to $1,358.74.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action based on a limitation period was previously dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought costs of the motion in the amount of $20,691.22, while the defendants argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge or fixed at $15,000 in the cause.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $18,700, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court ordered the costs to be payable by the defendants within 30 days, rejecting the defendants' request to defer the costs to the trial judge.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, a diabetic, received foot care from the defendant chiropodist and later required a leg amputation due to Charcot foot.

The defendants argued the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim by the date of amputation.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until receiving a medical expert report linking the amputation to the defendant's substandard care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the facts necessary to discover the negligence claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add the Attorney General of Canada as a defendant in a motor vehicle accident action alleging host liability.

The proposed defendant argued the amendment was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court applied the discoverability doctrine and the principles governing motions to add parties under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It found the plaintiffs had provided a reasonable explanation for not discovering the potential liability of the proposed defendant until the examination for discovery of the existing defendant.

Leave to amend was granted with permission for the proposed defendant to plead a limitations defence.