Harvey Consky

The plaintiff brought a motion to substitute the name of an individual defendant, claiming misnomer, and to amend its statement of claim to add new causes of action.

The individual defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against him personally.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the intended defendant could not have reasonably known he was the target of the litigation, and that the proposed amendments were statute-barred.

The court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding no evidence to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability.

The defendant dentist brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a negligence action arising from allegedly faulty bridgework as statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts underlying the claim by late May or early June 2011, when replacement treatment was recommended, reimbursement was demanded, and a regulatory complaint was threatened.

The plaintiff's later reliance on the professional regulator's decision did not postpone discoverability because knowledge of legal negligence is not required to start the limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant was struck by a slow-moving vehicle while walking in a parking lot and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits for chronic pain.

The insurer terminated benefits based on an independent medical examination finding no objective injury.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the applicant's subjective complaints of disabling pain were not credible, noting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding child care, her refusal of recommended treatments, and surveillance video showing her walking briskly and moving freely.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove she was substantially disabled from performing the essential tasks of her employment and dismissed the claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on surveillance video allegedly showing the applicant working.

The applicant disputed his identity in the videos, prompting a preliminary issue hearing.

After reviewing the video evidence, photographs, and witness testimony, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was indeed the individual depicted in the September 15, 1993 surveillance tape.

The applicant's request for hearing expenses was denied because his late admissions unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.