Randy Ai

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the proposed employment class action for delay pursuant to section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff had terminated his counsel's retainer and failed to take any steps to advance the proceeding or file a certification motion record by the statutory deadline.

The court found the motion was uncontestable as the plaintiff did not satisfy the mandatory conditions to keep the action alive.

The action was dismissed for delay with costs awarded to the defendant.

The defendant adjuster brought a motion to strike the claim against it on the basis that it had not been named in the notice of action but was added in the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion seeking to amend the notice of action to conform to the statement of claim.

The court held that the discrepancy constituted a procedural irregularity rather than a nullity under Rule 2.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and emphasized the liberal interpretation mandated by Rule 1.04(1).

In the absence of prejudice to the moving party and given that service occurred before the limitation period expired, the motion to strike was dismissed.

The court further found no need to formally amend the notice of action and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs.