Rachel Law

The minor respondent sued the appellant for damages resulting from a dog bite.

The appellant sought leave to issue a third party claim against the respondent's mother for negligent supervision, eleven months after the statement of defence was filed.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding prejudice to the respondent and a lack of merit in the proposed claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, clarifying that the test for assessing the merits of a proposed third party claim out of time is the test for an extension of time, not the strict pleadings test under Rule 21.

The appeal was dismissed.

This motion addressed Security National's request to add additional defendants (People on Bikes, Gordon Townley, and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario) to an existing third-party claim, almost six years after the incident and after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.

The court determined that the applicable rule for adding parties to an existing claim was Rule 5.04(2), not Rule 29.02(1.2), which required considering prejudice to both the plaintiff and the proposed new parties.

The court found that Security National failed to demonstrate that the information regarding the proposed defendants was not discoverable earlier with due diligence, thus prejudicing the proposed defendants due to the expired limitation period.

Furthermore, the court found that allowing the motion would cause significant delay and increased costs, resulting in actual prejudice to the plaintiff, Erin Townley, who has suffered serious injuries and seeks closure.

The court also noted the questionable merit of the claim against uninsured proposed parties.

Consequently, Security National's motion was denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on an unliquidated claim against the defendant, her former spouse, for damages resulting from his physical and psychological abuse during their marriage.

The defendant was noted in default and did not participate in the litigation.

The court assessed general damages, aggravated damages, and damages for lost earning capacity, along with an OHIP subrogated claim and pre-judgment interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 for general damages, $25,000 for aggravated damages, and $15,000 for loss of earning capacity, noting the evolving understanding of intimate partner violence in assessing aggravated damages.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought a Rule 14B motion seeking an order to seal the entire court record of his application to vary a custody and access order.

The original custody order was granted as a disposition in a child protection case, and the father was concerned that filing his materials, which included the original order identifying the children and sensitive facts, would violate the Child, Youth and Family Services Act's prohibition on publishing identifying information from child protection proceedings.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the privacy protections for children in child protection matters, combined with the children's best interests, outweighed the open court principle at this preliminary stage.