Philip Pollack

The plaintiff brought a motion to substitute Zachary M. Taylor for the defendant John Doe and to add TD Insurance Meloch Monnex a.k.a.

Primmum Insurance Company as a named defendant, seeking leave to amend the statement of claim.

Primmum opposed being added, arguing the limitation period had expired under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the unopposed substitution of Zachary M. Taylor.

Regarding Primmum, the court applied the discovery rule for claims against insurers, holding that the limitation period for adding an insurer under OAP 1 coverage commences the day after the plaintiff makes a demand for coverage, not at the time of the accident or the initial statement of claim.

Finding that the plaintiff had put Primmum on notice, the court determined the limitation period had not expired.

The motion to add Primmum and amend the claim was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants, Terence and Koshini Maisuria, brought a motion to transfer a motor vehicle action from Toronto to Brampton.

They argued that the accident occurred in Brampton and all individual parties resided there.

The plaintiff, Candace Powell, opposed the transfer, asserting that Toronto had sufficient connections and that the moving parties failed to demonstrate Brampton was a "significantly better" venue.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that while Brampton had some factors in its favour, it was not "significantly better" than Toronto, which the plaintiff had reasonably chosen.

The dismissal was without prejudice to a renewed motion closer to trial if circumstances changed.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident action sought to add Canada Post Corporation as a defendant and amend their statement of claim more than two years after the accident.

The plaintiff driver suffered severe injuries and had no memory of the accident.

The original police report did not mention a Canada Post truck.

Information about a Canada Post truck obstructing the view at the intersection only emerged after counsel obtained a collision reconstruction report and a witness statement.

The court considered the discoverability provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002, and found that the plaintiff's medical condition and the delayed discovery of the Canada Post truck's potential involvement constituted a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The motion to add Canada Post Corporation as a defendant was granted.

Following a motion where a defendant successfully dismissed the plaintiff's claim but failed to dismiss a co-defendant's cross-claim, the court determined the costs payable.

The successful defendant sought costs against the plaintiff, which were fixed at $16,000 after considering the complexity added by the plaintiff's arguments regarding the threshold condition.

The co-defendant sought costs against the moving defendant for successfully defending the cross-claim, which were fixed at $5,155.82 on a partial indemnity basis.