Kevin Eng

The defendant Atrium brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence and Crossclaim and to withdraw admissions made during pre-trial conferences regarding causation and the condition of the stairs where the plaintiff slipped and fell.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for judgment based on those admissions.

The court found that Atrium had made clear, binding admissions that the condition of the stairs caused the fall and that there was a breach of the standard of care.

Applying the three-part test for withdrawing admissions under Rule 51.05, the court denied Atrium's request because it failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the withdrawal.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment under Rule 51.06(2) was also dismissed because the core issue of which defendant was the 'occupier' remained undetermined.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a rental vehicle.

After the two-year limitation period expired, the plaintiff sought to add the renter of the vehicle as a defendant, arguing that the rental company failed to provide the renter's identity despite multiple requests.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the renter and granted leave to amend the statement of claim to add the proposed defendant, without prejudice to any limitation defences.

The applicants, Susan Victoria Borja and Michael Borja, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment from the Barrie Small Claims Court and reinstate Michael Borja's driver's licence.

This motion was deemed an abuse of process because the applicants had previously entered into a consent order in the Superior Court, which included a payment plan for the judgment and terms for driver's licence suspension upon default.

The court found that the applicants had failed to comply with the terms of this consent order, justifying the respondent's actions in seeking licence suspension.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside a Small Claims Court default judgment arising from a motor vehicle accident and to reinstate a suspended driver's licence.

The court found that the moving parties had previously agreed to a consent order dismissing an earlier motion on the condition of a payment plan, which they subsequently breached.

The court dismissed the current motion as an abuse of process, noting that the responding party was acting within its rights under the consent order when it requested the licence suspension.