N. Kolos

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim on two defendant physicians, and to validate service by email.

The two physicians had left the country and were difficult to locate.

The court granted the extension of time nunc pro tunc, finding no prejudice to the defendants and that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate them.

The court validated service by email on one physician, but declined to validate service on the other physician residing in Israel, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that email service was permitted under the Hague Convention.

The defendant, a Toronto City Councillor, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by the plaintiff auto parts business.

The action arose from comments the councillor made during a Scarborough Community Council meeting regarding complaints from a neighbouring Royal Canadian Legion branch about the plaintiff's conduct.

The court granted the motion, finding that the councillor's expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the councillor's defences of qualified privilege, fair comment, and statutory immunity had no real prospect of success.

Furthermore, the public interest in protecting the councillor's expression outweighed the minimal evidence of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The City of Toronto, as Third Party, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to the Third Party Claim to plead two statutory defences under the City of Toronto Act, 2006: failure to provide written notice (s. 42(6)) and that damages were caused by an object on an untraveled portion of the highway (s. 42(4)).

The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing presumed prejudice due to the late stage of the proceedings and that the proposed defences lacked merit.

The court, acting as case manager and trial judge, granted the motion, finding no actual or presumed prejudice and reiterating that the test for allowing an amendment to pleadings is not whether the defence will ultimately succeed at trial.