Faranaz Siganporia

The plaintiff was injured when she fell while chasing a rolling shopping cart in a sloped parking garage at a shopping mall.

The defendant mall owners moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's 'unsafe parking lot' theory, as the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that the ramp complied with safety standards.

However, the court deferred judgment on the 'unsafe shopping cart' theory, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleadings, demand a defence from the retailer that provided the cart, and obtain expert evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside an administrative dismissal order for abandonment and sought leave to amend the statement of claim to add the plaintiff’s insurer as a defendant under uninsured motorist coverage.

The court applied the factors governing relief from administrative dismissal, including the explanation for delay, inadvertence, delay in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the motion to set aside was not brought promptly, the court found the delay was not inordinate, the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence, and no actual prejudice was demonstrated.

The court emphasized the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.

The dismissal order was set aside and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim to add the insurer.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiff to amend a statement of claim to add them as defendants after the expiration of the limitation period.

The court considered whether there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision and whether the issue raised matters of sufficient importance under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff provided no evidence demonstrating reasonable diligence in identifying the proposed defendants prior to the expiry of the limitation period and no evidence of special circumstances justifying the amendment.

As a result, there was reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order and the issue raised broader questions concerning limitation periods and amendments to pleadings.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was granted.