2 total
Timetable established for a duty to defend motion brought by the City against its contractor.
The City of Toronto requested a case conference to schedule a hearing for a duty to defend application against its maintenance contractor and the contractor's insurer, arising from a slip and fall action.
The plaintiff in the main action argued the issue should be determined by a motion in the existing action and expressed concern about trial delay.
The court directed the matter to proceed by way of motion, found there was sufficient time without jeopardizing trial dates, and set a timetable for the motion.
Motion to amend pleadings granted; claims that defamation tainted family law proceedings were legally tenable.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to amend his statement of claim for a third time in an action for defamation and negligence against his former spouse, the police, and the Children's Aid Society.
The proposed amendments sought damages for the adverse outcomes of family law proceedings, alleging they were tainted by the defendants' false accusations that the plaintiff was a terrorist.
The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the amendments raised statute-barred causes of action and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the family law decisions.
The Master granted the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the amendments would fail, as they arguably pleaded a continuous course of damage rather than new causes of action, and the collateral attack issue was better left for trial.
