Noam Uri

The United Jewish Appeal of Greater Toronto (UJA) brought motions for default judgment against 100181947 Ontario Inc. o/a TLC Worldwide Inc. (TLC) and Daljit Sohal, and to enforce a settlement against Ryan Singh.

UJA also sought orders validating service on Singh and for substituted service on Mohammed Ashfaq and Prestige Worldwide Transportation Network LLC.

The court granted default judgment against TLC and Singh for breach of contract in the amount of $68,260.00 plus interest, validated service on Singh, and ordered substituted service on Ashfaq and Prestige.

However, the court declined to grant default judgment against Sohal, finding that the claim for unjust enrichment was not sufficiently made out as there was no incontrovertible evidence that Sohal personally received the benefit.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add a snow-clearing contractor as a defendant in a slip and fall action after the expiry of the presumptive two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued the claim against the contractor was not reasonably discoverable until the defendants advised they intended to add the contractor as a third party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's counsel failed to exercise reasonable diligence, as minimal inquiries to the store manager or insurance adjuster would have revealed the contractor's existence well within the limitation period.

This ruling addresses costs following a motion brought by the defendant Bryan Huber to compel the plaintiff to attend two defence medical examinations.

The court initially ordered the plaintiff to attend one examination and reserved on the second, pending the plaintiff's decision to abandon psychological injury and income loss claims.

The plaintiff subsequently provided written instructions to abandon these claims, leading the court to grant an amendment to the Statement of Claim and deem the second medical assessment unnecessary.

The defendant was awarded costs of the motion in the amount of $4,000.

The defendant physician brought a motion to dismiss the medical negligence claims of two minor plaintiffs on the basis that plaintiffs' counsel commenced the action without authority from their respective mothers, who were named as litigation guardians.

The evidence showed counsel had been unable to contact or obtain instructions from the mothers.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the minors' claims under Rule 15.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the dismissal was without prejudice to the minors' right to commence their own actions upon turning 18.

The third party, York Regional Police Services Board (YRPS), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim against it arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant Heft opposed the motion.

Heft also raised a preliminary issue that the case management judge should not hear the summary judgment motion.

The court held that a case management judge who has not conducted a pre-trial or settlement conference is not precluded from hearing a summary judgment motion.

On the substantive issue, the court found that summary judgment was not appropriate due to an incomplete evidentiary record, conflicting expert evidence regarding the standard of care for 911 call-takers, and the risk of inconsistent findings in a complex multi-party action.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a motorcycle accident in Jamaica.

She retained the defendant lawyer to investigate potential insurance claims.

The lawyer advised that her family's Ontario automobile insurance policy would not provide accident benefits due to a territorial restriction limiting coverage to North America, and thus did not file an application for benefits before the two-year limitation period expired.

The plaintiff sued the lawyer for professional negligence, arguing he should have filed the application to preserve her rights, especially given subsequent changes in case law.

The court dismissed the action, finding the lawyer met the standard of care of a reasonably competent expert in insurance law at the time, and that an application for benefits would likely have been denied anyway.