Martin Smith

The plaintiff's highway service centre was damaged by a fire originating in an exterior neon sign.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, a company that serviced signs and lights at the centre, alleging it should have warned the plaintiff about the risk of an electrical fire due to improper installation and aging components.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant's technicians had never worked on the specific sign in question or observed its faulty assembly.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendant did not owe a positive duty to warn the plaintiff of the danger of an electrical fire, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable in the context of their limited service relationship.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add two additional defendants in an action alleging wrongful dismissal and related civil wrongs.

The proposed defendants opposed the amendment on the basis that the applicable two‑year limitation period had expired under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court considered the discoverability doctrine and whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the involvement of the proposed defendants more than two years before the motion was served.

Finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine the discoverability issue conclusively, the court granted leave to amend and permitted the proposed defendants to plead a limitations defence.

Costs of the motion were reserved.