Lisa L. Holland

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add his spouse as a Family Law Act claimant arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed amendment was brought years after the accident and after the presumptive limitation period had expired.

The court held that the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002 that the proposed claimant knew or ought to have known of her claim within the limitation period.

The court also noted procedural deficiencies, including the absence of the proposed plaintiff’s consent as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given the lack of evidentiary foundation and the prejudice to the defendants due to delay and impending trial steps, leave to add the claimant was refused.

Following a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim against landlord defendants, the court considered the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants owed a statutory duty as landlords related to liquor licence liability insurance, but failed to identify supporting legislation and proceeded despite a settlement offer to dismiss the action without costs.

The court found the plaintiffs continued litigation despite the weakness of their position and the high likelihood of dismissal.

While expressing sympathy for the injuries alleged, the court held the moving parties were entitled to costs.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 plus disbursements.