J. Evans

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim on two defendant physicians, and to validate service by email.

The two physicians had left the country and were difficult to locate.

The court granted the extension of time nunc pro tunc, finding no prejudice to the defendants and that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate them.

The court validated service by email on one physician, but declined to validate service on the other physician residing in Israel, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that email service was permitted under the Hague Convention.

Following the successful motion by the plaintiff to set aside a registrar's dismissal order, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded because the plaintiff was granted an indulgence due to her former counsel's negligence.

The court held that while the plaintiff received an indulgence, the defendant's unreasonable opposition and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle warranted a costs award.

The plaintiff was awarded $6,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation related to a failed real estate development project.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the contract and recovery of his $500,000 investment.

The defendants argued that the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and raised genuine issues regarding the existence of a fiduciary duty, the cause of the project's failure, and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the state of the defendants' knowledge, and the limitation period.

Residual beneficiaries brought a motion for directions in a contested passing of accounts relating to a large estate.

They alleged that estate trustees had taken excessive executor’s compensation and sought review and possible repayment.

A former trustee sought to add an accounting firm as a party on the basis that the firm had received a substantial portion of the executor compensation through a partnership arrangement and might be vicariously liable under the Partnerships Act if the compensation was excessive.

The court held that there was a triable issue regarding whether the partner acted within the scope of partnership business or with the firm’s authorization, and that the firm’s presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The firm was therefore added as a party and a procedural timetable was established for discovery and trial of the passing of accounts.