Lidiya Yermakova

This endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion brought by the plaintiffs to strike the defendants' jury notices.

The defendants were entirely successful in defending the motion and were presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 57.01.

The court considered the amount in dispute ($1,500,000), the importance of the issue (right to jury trial), and the moderate complexity of the motion.

The plaintiffs had rejected an offer to withdraw the motion without costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to both sets of defendants, discounting the amounts to align with the costs outlines served prior to the motion and disallowing senior counsel's attendance for the doctor defendants as unnecessary.

The plaintiffs moved to strike jury notices filed by the defendants after the plaintiffs amended their Statement of Claim to double the damages sought from $750,000 to $1.5 million, prompted by new expert reports on future care costs.

The court applied the principles from Dow v. Ottawa Hospital-Civic Campus to determine if the amendment reopened pleadings for all purposes, including the timely filing of jury notices.

The court found that the amendments were necessary, implicitly contained new allegations regarding the plaintiff's limitations and future care needs, significantly changed the nature of the action, and necessitated further discoveries.

As the defendants filed the jury notices promptly and were not the party seeking the amendment, the court concluded that pleadings were reopened for all purposes, granting the defendants a statutory right to a jury trial.

The plaintiffs' motion to strike the jury notices was dismissed, as were their alternative requests for costs and further discoveries of the defendants.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the claim against the municipality was not discoverable until receipt of a police accident report revealing potential roadway maintenance issues and identifying the proper municipal authority.

The court held the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability and did not exercise reasonable diligence in identifying potential defendants, noting a 17‑month delay in obtaining the accident report.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.

The court also found that commencing a second action rather than seeking to amend the existing action to substitute the proper municipality constituted an abuse of process.