P. Pollack

Following the plaintiff's successful resistance of the defendants' motion to transfer the action from Toronto to Brampton, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff had offered to consent to the transfer on a without-costs basis, but the defendants aggressively sought costs regardless.

The court found the plaintiff's opposition reasonable given the defendants' stance and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $1,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The uninsured defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and transfer two companion subrogated motor vehicle accident claims to the Small Claims Court.

The defendant claimed he was unaware of the claims as they were sent to his former address, and argued the other driver was contributorily negligent.

The court partially granted the motion, setting aside the noting in default solely to allow the defendant to litigate the apportionment of liability, but refused to reopen the issue of damages or transfer the matter to Small Claims Court as the combined damages exceeded the monetary limit.

The moving party sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on the basis that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period began either when a police report disclosed the identity of the moving party or when a medical expert later confirmed that the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the identity of the moving party at the time of the accident and failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the claim.

The court also rejected the argument that discovery occurred only upon a later medical diagnosis, finding the plaintiff had sufficient information earlier to investigate and pursue the claim.

The action against the moving party was therefore statute‑barred, while a co‑defendant’s crossclaim for contribution and indemnity was found to be timely.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an extension of time to serve their statement of claim after the service deadline had expired.

The delay resulted from inadvertence and administrative errors by the plaintiffs’ counsel, and the motion itself was also brought after additional delay.

Applying the principles from Chiarelli v. Weins, the court focused on whether the defendant would suffer prejudice caused by the delay.

The defendant provided only general assertions of potential prejudice and no specific evidence demonstrating prejudice arising from the late service.

The court held that the absence of demonstrated prejudice favoured permitting the action to proceed on its merits and granted the extension, with no order as to costs.