Associate Judge Linda S. Abrams

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add the driver, owner, and insurer of the vehicle in which he was a passenger during a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The motion was brought in 2023, beyond the presumptive two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in investigating the identity of the proposed defendants and failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding discoverability.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to substitute its General Manager as its representative for examination for discovery instead of its President, who was selected by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a former employee, argued that the President was the only person with firsthand knowledge of the contract negotiations at the heart of the wrongful dismissal action.

Associate Justice Abrams denied the motion, finding that the President possessed sufficient knowledge of the matters in dispute and that examining him would not be oppressive.

The court concluded that substituting the representative would prejudice the plaintiff by filtering key evidence through a third party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set down a 2016 action for trial and to timetable remaining litigation steps, arguing an acceptable explanation for delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The defendants, including Inez Antonio and the Nialund defendants (Gore Mutual Insurance Company and Nialund Properties Limited), opposed the motion, with Inez Antonio bringing a cross-motion to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding their explanation for delay adequate and the defendants' assertions of prejudice unsupported, noting the defendants' passivity in the litigation.

The cross-motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs on a pay-as-you-go basis, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The court found persuasive evidence supporting the defendants' contention, noting the plaintiff's weak rebuttal evidence and refusal to be examined.

Considering the serious allegations of collusion, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy made by the plaintiff against the defendants, and the potential for substantial indemnity costs if the claims were dismissed, the court determined it would not be unjust to order security for costs.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for the defendants' partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, Grant A. Hood Holdings Inc. and Grant A. Hood, brought a motion seeking unfettered access to the books and records of Hodero Holdings Ltd. and Cade Management Ltd., including real-time online access to QuickBooks, source documents, and the Hodero email server, as well as further affidavits of documents from the defendants.

The court granted real-time QuickBooks access with shared costs, allowed on-site inspection of hard copy source documents with shared conversion costs, but denied broad access to the Hodero email server, finding no legitimate business need and that the request was disproportionate.

The court also denied immediate orders for further affidavits of documents and cross-examination on them, emphasizing ongoing disclosure obligations.

Portions of an affidavit related to arbitration confidentiality were struck.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought motions to extend the set down deadline in a 2012 construction deficiency action and to have a related 2017 solicitor's negligence action tried together with it.

The defendants in the construction action cross-moved to dismiss for delay.

The court granted the extension peremptorily to December 31, 2023, finding the delay adequately explained and no actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together and instead stayed the solicitor's negligence action, finding the construction action significantly more complex and that a stay would prevent unnecessary duplication of resources.

The applicant sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a residential property after the respondents refused to grant a short extension for closing and terminated the agreement of purchase and sale.

The applicant claimed specific performance, arguing the property was unique and that the parties' prior flexible dealings raised an issue of estoppel regarding the strict enforcement of the closing date.

The court found triable issues regarding both the uniqueness of the property and estoppel, and concluded that the balance of convenience and equities favoured the applicant.

The motion to register the certificate of pending litigation was granted.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment and notice of garnishment obtained by the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, provided a plausible explanation for the default due to improper service and lack of notification, and presented an arguable defence regarding defective products.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's counsel failed to provide a courtesy copy of the claim or judgment to the defendant's retained counsel, and that the administration of justice favored a trial on the merits.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further particulars regarding her 2020 wrongful termination claim.

The defendant sought extensive particulars, arguing they were necessary to plead.

The court largely denied the defendant's requests, finding many particulars were already provided, evident from the claim, or not within the plaintiff's current knowledge due to lack of access to work files.

The court ordered the plaintiff to particularize an allegation of discrimination based on ethnicity, confirm timelines, and identify specific sections of statutes relied upon.

The defendant was ordered to deliver a defence within 20 days of compliance.

The plaintiffs in two medical negligence actions brought refusals motions seeking production of information and documents from hospital case reviews and morbidity and mortality rounds.

The defendants argued the information was irrelevant and protected by common law quality assurance privilege.

The court dismissed the motions, finding the information irrelevant as it involved hindsight and potential remedial measures.

Furthermore, the court held that the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004 did not abrogate common law privilege, and the communications satisfied the Wigmore criteria for protection.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim arising from the sale of a gas station business.

The court found the claim was irregular as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against one defendant, lacked required particulars for allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and created a multiplicity of proceedings by raising issues that should have been addressed in an existing parallel action between the parties.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence, alleging a pattern of delay and evasion in fulfilling discovery obligations and answering undertakings.

The defendant argued it had made best efforts but was hindered by the sale of its assets and records to a third party, which had restricted access due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court declined to strike the defence, finding the defendant's efforts were genuine and its conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate or unequivocal default.

However, the court ordered a limited two-hour re-examination of the defendant's representative and appointed itself for light-touch case management to ensure the action progressed.

The defendant employer moved to strike a pleading in a wrongful dismissal and human rights action alleging that it regularly hired younger employees.

The court held that the allegation was overly broad, irrelevant as pleaded, and would improperly expand discovery by invoking a comparator group untethered to the plaintiff’s business unit, time period, or other material limits.

The court also found affidavit material concerning the employer’s U.S. parent corporation irrelevant to the pleaded Canadian employment dispute.

The impugned plea was struck with leave to amend to narrow its scope.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a property in Jackson's Point.

The parties were former business partners who had entered into a loan agreement that permitted the registration of security against the property in the event of default.

The court found that the plaintiff had a triable claim to an equitable mortgage and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the relief.

The motion was granted.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant in Ontario on a personal guarantee related to a promissory note, despite the guarantee containing a New York choice of law and non-exclusive forum selection clause.

The court applied the Van Breda factors and concluded that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the risk of inconsistent results and the efficiency of applying New York law in a New York court.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendants' law firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the plaintiff in labour and employment matters, during which it received confidential information relevant to the current litigation involving alleged employee poaching by the defendants.

The court found that the law firm received relevant confidential information, the matters were sufficiently related, and the confidentiality screens implemented were inadequate.

The motion to remove the law firm was granted to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals from a judgment debtor examination, and to extend the time for service of a 2017 statement of claim alleging improper transfers intended to defeat collection of a 2011 judgment.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the 2017 statement of claim for lack of particularity.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding the defendants' efforts to fulfill undertakings were insufficient and their claims of prejudice regarding the delay in service were weak and speculative.

The defendants' motion to strike was dismissed as premature.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking the production of unredacted copies of documents listed in the defendant's affidavit of documents, which related to an internal investigation leading to her dismissal.

The defendant sought a confidentiality order over the documents, arguing they contained personal information of non-parties.

The court ordered the production of the unredacted documents, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate that disclosure would cause significant harm or that the redacted information was clearly irrelevant.

The court also declined to impose a formal confidentiality order, concluding that the deemed undertaking rule and an undertaking provided by the plaintiff's counsel were sufficient to protect the defendant's interests.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to correct misnomers and substitute "Doe" defendants with named individuals, alleging fraud and misappropriation.

The motion was unopposed for five proposed defendants and granted.

For the five vigorously opposed proposed defendants, the court applied Rules 5.04 and 26.01, considering prejudice and the "litigating finger" test.

The court found that the claims against Parray and Khanlarov were too vague and outside the relevant time period, and against Kovalov, the "litigating finger" was not sufficiently pointed, and potential prejudice was noted.

Therefore, the motion to substitute Parray, Khanlarov, and Kovalov was dismissed.

However, the motion to substitute Halatullah and Kolesnik was granted, as the claims against them were sufficiently particularized or their first name matched a "Doe" defendant, and any prejudice was deemed inherent to litigation.

The plaintiff alleged injuries from a slip and fall on a sidewalk and commenced an action against the City of Toronto and the registered owner of the adjacent property, Maria Naccarato.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff learned Maria Naccarato had died years prior and her son, Joe Naccarato, was the executor and occupier of the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute Joe Naccarato as a defendant.

The court granted the motion, finding the pleading constituted a misnomer, the intended defendant had timely notice, and there was no non-compensable prejudice.