Davies Bagambiire

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to serve a Statement of Claim, filed in 2017 for a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the delay of over five years to be extreme and inexcusable.

The plaintiff's explanations, including inability to locate parties, a negligent associate, and COVID-19, were deemed without merit.

The court found actual and presumed prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, loss of evidence, and compromised ability to investigate and bring third-party claims.

The decision emphasized counsel's ultimate responsibility for prosecuting the action.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order allowing a medical negligence claim to proceed in the Superior Court, despite the plaintiff being a professional football player subject to a collective agreement with an arbitration clause.

The appellant, a radiologist, argued the claim fell under the collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the "essential character" of the dispute was medical negligence by an independent third-party physician, not a dispute arising from the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the arbitration process under the collective agreement would not provide effective redress for a medical malpractice claim, particularly regarding costs and expert fees.

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct a misnomer, identifying 'John Doe 1' as Benjamin Elliott, and to amend his statement of claim in an action alleging police assault and racial profiling.

The court granted the misnomer correction, finding the 'litigating finger' clearly pointed at Elliott despite the plaintiff's delay.

The court also permitted most of the proposed amendments, finding they provided particulars of the existing claims for assault, battery, and racial profiling.

However, the court denied an amendment alleging the police board failed to properly train its officers, ruling it asserted a new cause of action after the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her notice of action, extend the time to file a statement of claim, and extend the time to serve the amended notice of action and statement of claim in a medical malpractice case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's deliberate decision to put her case on hold for 20 months, without contact with her lawyer, demonstrated a lack of intention to pursue the claim.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer significant prejudice due to the passage of over four years since the events, leading to memory loss among medical professionals and loss of opportunity for timely investigation by the hospital.

The plaintiff employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal against his employer, alleging constructive dismissal after the employer unilaterally added significant IT and software administration duties to his original role as a field service technician.

The employer argued the changes were a natural extension of his duties and that the employee failed to mitigate by refusing to return to work.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer fundamentally altered the employment contract and created a hostile work environment, constituting constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff was awarded $55,000, representing 12 months' notice, but his claim for bad faith damages was dismissed.