Patricia Hill

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim sought an adjournment of the trial to bring a motion to consolidate the action with the plaintiff's separate defamation lawsuit against a newspaper.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was claiming psychological damages in both actions.

The court dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding the two pieces of litigation to be separate and distinct, and noting the defendants could cross-examine the plaintiff and experts on the overlapping issues without consolidating the trials.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add a security company as a defendant after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period following a slip and fall in a condominium parking area.

The plaintiff relied on the doctrine of discoverability and argued that correspondence and later pleadings revealed the potential involvement of the security company.

The court held that the plaintiff had sufficient information within the limitation period to identify the security provider and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating its identity.

Evidence showed that the plaintiff interacted with the concierge on the day of the incident and counsel received information about the security company months before the limitation period expired.

The court concluded that the proposed claim was statute‑barred and the amendment could not be permitted.