Heather Douglas

Two sets of respondents brought motions under Rule 37.14 to set aside an order made in January 2025 striking their pleadings and granting significant relief to the applicant.

The respondents' former lawyer had failed to advise them of the motion leading to the order, lied about bringing a motion to set it aside, fabricated a court hearing and correspondence with judicial officials, and then disappeared from the proceedings.

The court found one set of respondents (the Foulidis respondents) met the test for setting aside the order, having moved forthwith once they discovered the deception, while the other set (the Conforti respondents) did not meet the forthwith requirement due to a six-month delay after retaining new counsel.

However, the court set aside the order for all respondents because maintaining it against only one set would create unmanageable procedural disparity, and directed a case conference to determine which enforcement steps should remain in place.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of the Statement of Claim and to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay, arguing prejudice due to the five-year delay between issuance and service.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for the delay acceptable, noting the plaintiff was pursuing a WSIB claim and attempting to consolidate discoveries with companion actions.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, as his counsel had been involved in companion actions arising from the same accident.

The plaintiff's motions were granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add several parties, including Watts and Gayton, as defendants in an action arising from a fatal scalding incident in a retirement home bathtub.

Watts and Gayton opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired and they would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the plumbing apparatus was no longer available for inspection.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the identities of the proposed defendants within the limitation period, as they could have obtained this information by requiring timely delivery of the original defendants' statements of defence.

The motion to add Watts and Gayton was dismissed.