Jillian Van Allen

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The statement of claim was issued in October 2019 but not served until October 2024, nearly four years after the deadline.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the extensive delay, which involved multiple changes in legal representation and a deliberate decision not to serve the claim in 2023.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice due to faded memories, lost evidence, and the inability to conduct timely medical assessments.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order to validate and extend the time to serve the statement of claim on the defendants, to substitute the named defendant from "Boyce Stewart" to "Stewart Boyce" due to misnomer, and to extend the set down date from June 19, 2025 to June 19, 2027.

The defendants opposed the motion.

The court found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay caused by departure of counsel and subsequent misunderstanding about file carriage.

The court further found that the defendants suffered no prejudice or unfairness, as the parties had exchanged information through their insurers within days of the accident and continued to do so for approximately two years before the claim was issued.

The court granted the motion, validating service and extending the set down date, while ordering each party to bear its own costs.

The court dismissed Dana Proctor’s action against Penske Truck Leasing as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim, arising from a truck rental dispute, included wide-ranging and implausible allegations and relief, including conspiracy, electronic harassment, and requests for judicial review of Alberta court decisions.

The court found the action lacked legal merit, repeated issues from prior proceedings, and was marred by irrelevant and repetitive content.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff’s action as frivolous and vexatious.

The registrar referred the matter to the judge following a request from the defendant’s counsel.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and found it may be frivolous and vexatious, but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to make submissions before dismissal.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing, and the registrar was directed to provide notice and restrict further filings except for the plaintiff’s submissions.

The decision addresses cross-motions to remove counsel for conflict of interest in a privacy action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff sought to remove the defendant’s counsel, Ms. Schultz, due to her dual role as counsel for the accident benefits insurer and for the defendant in the privacy action.

The court found a conflict and ordered her removal.

The defendant’s motion to remove the plaintiff’s counsel, the Campisi firm, was dismissed as there was no real basis to believe the firm could provide material, non-privileged evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore a motor vehicle accident lawsuit to the trial list, while the defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay.

The court found that although there was a significant delay of nearly ten years since the statement of claim was issued, the active delay was primarily caused by the defendants and court administration issues rather than the plaintiff.

Additionally, the court determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate any non-compensable prejudice that would prevent a fair trial.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action and dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay.

This decision addresses interim parenting, decision-making, and the enforceability of a cohabitation agreement in a family law dispute.

The court declined to change the existing parenting schedule or grant unilateral health decision-making to the mother, instead ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court found the cohabitation agreement to be a valid domestic contract barring property and spousal support claims, subject to statutory exceptions under the Family Law Act.

The issue of the respondent’s earning capacity and unconscionability of the support waiver was left for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Mareva injunction regarding the proceeds of the sale of a commercial property owned by the defendants.

The defendants did not receive notice of the motion because their former counsel had stopped practicing and they had moved.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the defendants to respond, ordered substituted service by email, and directed that any excess funds from the property sale be held in trust by the plaintiff's counsel pending the motion's outcome.

The plaintiff brought an action for solicitor's negligence against his former lawyer, alleging the lawyer negligently advised him to settle his statutory accident benefits claim for an inadequate amount and failed to investigate a potential catastrophic impairment designation.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the lawyer's investigation and negotiation of the settlement met the standard of a reasonably competent lawyer given the plaintiff's need for immediate funds, poor compliance with treatment, and the risk of benefits termination.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to prove that he would have rejected the settlement or achieved a better outcome had a catastrophic impairment assessment been recommended.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss an action brought against them by the plaintiff, a frequent litigation adversary of their client.

The plaintiff alleged professional misconduct and actionable wrongs, including conspiracy and misleading the court, stemming from the defendants' representation of their client.

While the plaintiff conceded that lawyers do not owe a duty of care to opposing parties, he argued his amended claim, which included new allegations, established a genuine issue for trial.

The court considered the amended claim but found that the plaintiff failed to provide specific facts or evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their action for delay, which arose from a 2011 property flood.

The court applied the four-factor test from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., assessing the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found significant unexplained delays by both plaintiffs and their counsel, that the missed deadline was not mere inadvertence, and that the motion to set aside was not promptly brought.

Crucially, the defendants suffered actual prejudice due to the death of a key plaintiff (James Freure) and the dementia of another (Fae Freure), which prevented full discoveries and expert examinations, and resulted in the loss of relevant medical records.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the dismissal, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation.

A separate motion to appoint Catherine Chapman as litigation guardian for Fae Freure was granted.

The Applicant father sought supervised parenting time with his three children after the Respondent mother alleged sexual and physical abuse against him.

Two police investigations and two Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigations found the allegations not credible, and no charges were laid.

The mother opposed the motion, citing the children's disclosures and a need for more counselling.

The court granted the father interim supervised parenting time, emphasizing the lack of corroboration from police and CAS, and the mother's failure to provide specific particulars of the children's statements.

The court ordered incremental supervised visits with the assistance of mutual friends as supervisors and requested CAS support for logistics and child preparation.

This endorsement addresses motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the scope of judicial review when a limited statutory right of appeal exists.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to intervene to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC), finding they offered unique perspectives on the implications of the Divisional Court's decision for other statutory schemes.

The motion for leave to intervene by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) was dismissed as its submissions were largely duplicative of the appellant's and granting a third intervener would be unfair to the respondent.

The plaintiff was partially successful on a motion to compel a further and better affidavit of documents and sought partial indemnity costs of $4,575.87.

The defendants argued for 50% of the claimed costs due to divided success.

The court rejected a strict mathematical reduction for divided success but noted the plaintiff's evidentiary failings on the unsuccessful relief.

Costs were fixed at $3,748.82 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, suing his former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of contract, brought a motion under Rule 30.06 for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought production of correspondence, legal billing records, internal law firm documents, and settlement communications with insurers.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the defendants to produce documents relating to legal billing and accounting, as well as communications with insurers regarding the settlement of the tort and accident benefits claims, finding these relevant to the pleadings.

The request for internal documents and other correspondence was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The parties made a consent request to adjourn the pretrial and fixed trial dates in a solicitor's negligence action.

The request was based on a recent order allowing the defendants to amend their Statement of Defence.

The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to serve an expert report on the standard of care despite the passage of eight years and a consent timetable.

The court dismissed the request, holding that fixed trial dates in Toronto are only adjourned in exceptional circumstances and that breaching timetabling orders does not justify an adjournment.

The appellant sought to appeal and judicially review a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision which found her claims for statutory accident benefits were statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the statutory appeal, finding that the LAT's determination of whether the insurer's denial letter was clear and unequivocal was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, holding that judicial review of a LAT decision on statutory accident benefits is only available in exceptional circumstances, given the legislative intent to limit appeals to questions of law.

The plaintiffs sought costs for their successful Fresh Evidence and Mareva Injunction motions against the Grillone Defendants, and the defendant Lisa Gatto sought costs for the Mareva Injunction motion that was withdrawn against her.

The court awarded Gatto $7,500 in partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The court found the Grillone Defendants engaged in dishonourable conduct deserving of censure and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs totaling $44,500, which included the amount the plaintiffs were ordered to pay Gatto.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal for delay in a Simplified Procedure action concerning an alleged breach of a commercial lease.

The action was dismissed after five years due to a combination of prior counsel's inaction, misguided procedural steps including an improperly obtained default judgment, and current counsel's inadvertence in tracking the five-year anniversary.

Applying the Reid Factors, the court found the motion was brought promptly, the delay was largely explained by counsel changes and errors, and the defendants failed to establish non-compensable prejudice.

Emphasizing the policy of resolving disputes on their merits, especially when dismissal results from counsel's error, the court granted the motion, setting aside the dismissal.

No costs were awarded, as the defendants' costs were deemed unreasonable and avoidable.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a final uncontested divorce order.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the five-part test for setting aside a final order.

While the father acted promptly, the court found he had no plausible excuse for failing to participate in the proceedings and failed to establish an arguable defence on the merits regarding child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, or equalization.

The court found any prejudice regarding parenting issues could be addressed through a Motion to Change.

The motion to set aside was dismissed.