Kenneth G. Hood

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a motor vehicle accident claim on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The central issue was when the claim became discoverable under s. 5 of the Act, given the statutory threshold requirement for serious and permanent impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that discoverability required a sufficient body of medical evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold.

Because the first medical opinion diagnosing serious and permanent impairment arose in June 2010, the claim issued in May 2012 was within the limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff dismissing the limitation defence.

The defendants brought a motion asserting that the plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident claim was statute-barred under the two‑year limitation period tied to the discoverability of a threshold injury under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether it was discoverable before January 23, 2010 that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent and serious impairment meeting the statutory threshold following a 2008 accident.

Although the plaintiff had suffered significant symptoms and had consulted numerous medical professionals, the medical evidence did not clearly establish permanence or seriousness prior to that date.

The court held that the available medical reports created a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding discoverability and the limitation defence.

The defendants’ motion was therefore dismissed, leaving the limitation and threshold issues to be determined at trial.

In a pedestrian–streetcar collision action, a transit authority brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim against its municipal co‑defendant.

The moving party argued that it would assume responsibility for maintenance of trees on a median that allegedly obstructed the streetcar operator’s view and relied on statutory provisions of the City of Toronto Act.

The court held that the summary judgment rules could permit a defendant to seek dismissal of a claim against a co‑defendant, but the evidentiary record revealed genuine issues requiring a trial regarding responsibility for the median and trees.

Ownership of the land remained with the municipality and the statutory provision did not bar claims where the property was not the transit authority’s.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.