M. Edward Key

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the costs provision of a 2018 formal judgment.

The formal order, drafted by the defendants' counsel and approved by the plaintiff's counsel, awarded costs against only one corporate defendant, contrary to the trial judge's endorsement which awarded costs against multiple defendants.

The corporate defendant against whom costs were awarded subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The court found that there was no meeting of the minds between counsel regarding the costs liability and that the formal order contained an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.

The court set aside the costs provision under Rule 59.06 and ordered a rehearing on the issue of costs.

The moving parties, defendants in a motor vehicle collision action, brought a motion to compel the Crown to provide further documentary discovery and produce a representative for oral discovery.

The action against the Crown was brought under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA).

The court considered conflicting jurisprudence on whether the Crown can be compelled to give discovery under the PTHIA.

Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the court followed the Court of Appeal's decision in Longo, holding that the Crown cannot be compelled to submit to documentary or oral discovery in such claims.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant organization moved to dismiss a personal injury action on the basis that the claim against it was commenced outside the applicable two‑year limitation period.

The plaintiffs had initially sued another party following a slip and fall at a fundraising skating event and later added the moving party after learning of its potential involvement through a third‑party claim.

The court considered the discoverability principles under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and whether reasonable due diligence would have revealed the moving party’s role earlier.

The court found there was no trigger that would reasonably have alerted the plaintiffs to the moving party’s involvement in the ice rink setup prior to receiving the third‑party claim.

As a result, the limitation period had not expired and the action could proceed.