David Truman

The defendant contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff municipality's claim for construction defects was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff discovered roof leaks in January 2015 but did not receive an engineering report confirming the cause until March 13, 2015.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence and could not have drawn a plausible inference of liability until receiving the expert opinion.

The limitation period did not begin to run until March 13, 2015.

The defendants, Fowler Construction Company Limited and The Corporation of the City of Toronto, brought a motion under Rule 33.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff, Tennisha Pulford, to attend a defence neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion lacked evidence and sought to corroborate a deficient prior expert opinion.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the principle of "trial fairness" and the need for "matching reports" from experts in the same specialty, particularly given the plaintiff's assertion of cognitive and neurological damage.

Despite a noted deficiency in the defendants' supporting evidence, the court found the need for the examination outweighed this, and that it would not delay the trial.

No costs were awarded due to the evidence deficiency.

At a civil case conference requested by the defendant, counsel sought substantive orders regarding unanswered correspondence, undertakings, and a WAGG motion.

The court declined to make the requested orders, emphasizing that case conferences are for procedural matters and timetabling, not for obtaining substantive relief or enforcing civility between counsel.

The court directed the parties to bring formal motions if substantive relief was required.