4 total
Jury notice struck due to pandemic delays to avoid prejudice to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a trip and fall action due to ongoing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court granted leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.
Applying a five-factor analysis, the court concluded that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice from further delay and that justice was better served by discharging the jury.
The motion was granted, with leave for the defendants to seek reinstatement if jury trials are permitted when the matter is called.
Motion to add defendants after limitation period granted as discoverability raised triable issues of fact.
The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident case moved to amend their statement of claim to add three new defendants after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.
The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover their involvement within the limitation period.
The court granted the motion, finding that there were issues of credibility and fact regarding when the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the claims, which warranted a trial.
The proposed defendants were granted leave to plead a limitation defence.
The court ordered the plaintiff to produce discovery transcripts from prior actions to assess overlapping injuries.
The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action or, alternatively, to compel the plaintiff to answer discovery questions and produce transcripts from examinations for discovery in three prior motor vehicle accident actions.
The plaintiff had sustained injuries in previous accidents, and the defendants argued that the prior discovery transcripts were necessary to assess the overlap of injuries with the current action.
The court found that the interests of justice outweighed any prejudice, compelling the production of the prior transcripts under Rule 30.1.01(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motion to dismiss the action was denied due to a lack of submissions on that specific point.
Motion to strike statement of defence for non-compliance with production order dismissed; further production ordered.
The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence for failing to comply with a prior order requiring the production of specific documents, namely ingredient lists for food items supplied to the plaintiff.
The court found that the defendant had not fully complied with the order or made best efforts to obtain the missing ingredient lists from its suppliers.
However, the court declined to strike the statement of defence because the defendant had been actively defending the action.
The court ordered the defendant to take specific steps to comply with the prior order and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.
