Maseeh Mikael Sidky

The Court of Appeal considered when the limitation period for a claim against an unidentified motorist insurer (under s. 265 of the Insurance Act) begins to run, specifically under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge and Divisional Court held that the limitation period does not begin until the insured makes an indemnification claim that the insurer fails to satisfy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a claim against the insurer is "discovered" under s. 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Limitations Act only when the insured knows or ought to know that the insurer's act or omission (failure to indemnify) caused their loss.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the plaintiff's claim against TTC Insurance was not statute-barred.

The appellants appealed an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the TTC Insurance Company Limited as a defendant.

The appellants argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the limitation period for an indemnification claim does not begin to run until a demand is made and the insurer fails to satisfy it, following the Markel line of authorities.

The plaintiff brought a motion to substitute a known roofing contractor for a 'John Doe Contractor' defendant on the basis of misnomer, to have three related fire damage actions tried together, and to assign the matter to case management.

The court dismissed the misnomer motion, finding the proposed defendant could not have reasonably known the 'litigating finger' was pointed at him since he was known to the plaintiff and the pleading described an unknown entity.

The court granted the request to try the actions together due to overlapping facts and witnesses, but declined to order case management.

The applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination based on disability.

The parties reached a settlement at mediation, but the respondent failed to execute the settlement forms and was subsequently placed under a trusteeship pursuant to the Construction Lien Act, which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant advised the Tribunal he was commencing a Superior Court proceeding to enforce the settlement, and the Tribunal deferred the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal requests for an update on the court proceeding, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages based on a three‑month notice period totaling $32,425.39, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $60,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $41,530, while the defendant argued that $25,000 all‑inclusive was appropriate.

Applying Rule 57.01 and considering proportionality in simplified procedure cases, the court emphasized that costs must be reasonable relative to the amount in dispute and recovery obtained.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s partial success, unsuccessful inducement arguments, and the significant legal resources devoted to a short trial involving modest damages.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

An employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal after termination without notice.

The employer relied on a termination clause limiting notice to the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court held that although the clause clearly referenced the statutory minimum notice period, it failed to provide for continuation of benefits during the notice period, contrary to the ESA.

As a result, the entire termination clause was void and the employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that three months’ reasonable notice was appropriate and awarded damages including salary, car allowance, pension contributions, and modest special damages.