Shauna K. Powell

The moving defendants brought a motion in writing to amend an earlier order that authorized substitute service of their statement of defence, crossclaim, and counterclaim on a co-defendant.

They sought to extend the time for service, believing it was necessary because the plaintiffs had already noted the co-defendant in default.

The court dismissed the motion as misconceived and unnecessary, clarifying that the relevant rules restrict delivery only if the moving defendants themselves had been noted in default, which had not occurred.

Valid service had already been effected under the terms of the original order.

The defendant requested the court to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's claim, stemming from an involuntary detention in 2010, was found to lack material facts and a plausible cause of action.

The court also determined the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, rejecting the plaintiff's discoverability argument based on a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action and related motions.

The appellants were injured in motor vehicle accidents and commenced both accident benefits arbitration proceedings and civil actions for damages.

In the arbitration proceedings, they were compelled to submit to medical examinations.

The respondents in the civil actions sought production of the resulting medical reports.

The appellants refused, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Court of Appeal held that neither the deemed undertaking rule under the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the common law implied undertaking rule applied to protect the medical reports from disclosure in the tort actions, as the rule protects against use by the recipient of the information, not against all uses by the source of the information.

The appeals were dismissed.