Matthew W. Malcolm

In a medical malpractice action, the defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, who alleged back injuries due to improper treatment.

Despite four years of litigation and multiple extensions, including a specific timetable set by a previous judge, the plaintiff failed to serve any expert report to establish the standard of care or causation.

The defendants, conversely, provided expert reports asserting that the standard of care was met and that the plaintiff suffered no discernable back injury.

The court dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring trial due to the absence of necessary expert evidence from the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, but were reduced by half due to the plaintiff's personal hardships.

The respondent brought a motion to add WSP Canada Inc. as a defendant in an ongoing negligence action arising from the rehabilitation of a bridge.

The motion judge granted the motion, finding that the respondent's claim against WSP was not statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the claim was not reasonably discoverable within the two-year limitation period.

WSP appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the motion judge's order was interlocutory rather than final.

The motion judge's determination regarding the limitation period was made solely for purposes of deciding the motion to add a party and did not finally determine the limitations issue, which could be relitigated at trial.