2 total
Appeal dismissed; sexual assault claims do not exempt plaintiffs from compliance with rules against delay.
The appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside the administrative dismissal of her action for damages for sexual assault.
The appellant argued that because her claim involved sexual assault and was not subject to a limitation period, the Master erred by not applying a more lenient test for setting aside the dismissal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly considered the nature of the claim as a contextual factor but properly concluded that the appellant's failure to move the action forward was unrelated to the nature of the assault, and that the respondents were entitled to expect compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appeal allowed in part to grant leave to amend deficient pleadings for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking their claims for conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust, and refusing leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the pleadings lacked the required particularity and were deficient.
However, the Court found the motion judge erred in refusing leave to amend, as the pleading did not contain a radical defect incapable of being cured.
The appeal was allowed in part to grant leave to amend those specific claims, while a motion to introduce fresh evidence was dismissed.
