Ian Drong

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 defendant, Irina Campos, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff, Miano, was injured in a hit-and-run in May 2015 and only identified Campos as the probable owner of the truck in February 2018 after obtaining police records.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, holding that a limitation period defence based on discoverability is a question of mixed fact and law, not suitable for determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) unless facts are undisputed.

The court further clarified that a claim for damages from an automobile accident is not discovered until the plaintiff knows or ought to know the identity of the owner or operator of the automobile, rendering it unnecessary to commence an action against "Jane Doe" to preserve a limitation period.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused on cross-examination.

The plaintiff had sworn an affidavit in support of a pending motion to remove the defendant's counsel for a conflict of interest, alleging he previously shared confidential information with lawyers at that firm.

The plaintiff refused to disclose the contents of those conversations, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court granted the motion to compel, finding that the defendant needed the details of the communications to test whether a solicitor-client relationship existed, whether the information was confidential, and whether there was a risk of prejudice.