Sebastian Schmoranz

The appellant pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle and commenced an action against 'John Doe' within the limitation period.

After the limitation period expired, the appellant successfully moved to substitute the respondent's name for 'John Doe' on the basis of misnomer.

The respondent subsequently brought a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that the limitation period had expired and the appellant had not exercised due diligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where a true defendant would know on reading the statement of claim that they were the intended defendant, due diligence is not required, and the summary judgment motion was an impermissible indirect attack on the misnomer order.

The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to an inability to communicate with the applicant.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and the preliminary issue hearing despite receiving notice.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove the representative from the record and dismissed the application for arbitration without costs due to the applicant's failure to participate.

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

After mediation failed, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant's counsel withdrew from the record due to an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend a pre-hearing and a preliminary issue hearing, despite receiving proper notice.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned the proceeding and dismissed the application for arbitration.

No costs were awarded.