3 total
Extension for service refused due to lack of diligence and prejudice to defendants.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for substitute service of a statement of claim and an extension of time for service under Rules 16.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The action arose from a fatal pedestrian motor vehicle accident, but the defendants had not been served within the required six‑month period after issuance of the claim.
The court found the plaintiffs had made minimal efforts to locate and serve the defendants and had not demonstrated due diligence.
Applying the principles in Chiarelli v. Weins and considering prejudice arising from the delay, the court held that both presumed and actual prejudice existed, including the loss of key witnesses and impaired ability to pursue claims against other potentially liable parties.
The plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.
The motion for substitute service and extension of time was therefore dismissed.
Insurer failed to prove privilege; master’s order compelling production upheld.
The appellant insurer appealed a master’s order compelling answers to discovery refusals and production of documents from its claims file in litigation arising from a propane facility explosion and a coverage dispute.
The insurer asserted solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege over memoranda, meeting notes, and claims file materials generated during the coverage investigation.
The court held that an appeal from a master’s decision is not a de novo hearing and is limited to correcting errors of law, wrong principles, or palpable and overriding errors.
The insurer failed to establish an evidentiary basis for either solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege because no affidavit evidence demonstrated that the documents contained legal advice or were created for the dominant purpose of litigation.
The master’s order requiring production was therefore upheld.
Transcript evidence was allowed despite simplified-procedure cross-examination limits.
On a procedural motion in a simplified rules action, the moving parties sought to rely on transcripts and undertakings generated from cross-examinations conducted on affidavits in relation to a certificate of pending litigation motion.
The court reviewed Rules 1, 2, 42, and 76, prior authorities on irregularities and fresh steps, and the statutory framework governing certificates of pending litigation.
The court held that, given the nature of the interim land-related relief and the parties' conduct, use of the existing transcripts should be permitted on the main motion.
The withdrawn refusals motion and the subsidiary motion costs were reserved to the judicial officer hearing the certificate motion.
