R. Tinney

In an insurance coverage action, the parties brought three motions regarding discovery refusals and the examination of a second discovery representative.

The judge determined that the motions were within the jurisdiction of a Master and, pursuant to the Toronto Region Consolidated Practice Direction, transferred the motions to a Master for determination.

The judge also ordered a case conference to address procedural deficiencies and ensure the orderly development of the motions for hearing.

The plaintiff insurer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for fraud and conspiracy arising from a staged motor vehicle accident claim.

The uncontradicted evidence established that two of the defendants orchestrated a scheme to falsely report the driver's identity and submit fraudulent accident benefits and tort claims.

The court granted summary judgment against those two defendants for the amounts paid out by the insurer, but dismissed the motion against the son, finding insufficient evidence of his participation in the fraud.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the compensatory damages and prior costs orders sufficient for deterrence.

The moving party defendant, Dufferin, brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to correct the names of John Doe defendants to three proposed defendants under the doctrine of misnomer.

The court found that a defendant has standing to bring a misnomer motion.

The court granted the motion with respect to two proposed defendants (TIL and TIES), finding that the 'litigating finger' pointed at them and they would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion with respect to the third proposed defendant (TDI), finding that although the 'litigating finger' pointed at them, they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to significant delay and lack of notice, and the moving party failed to show reasonable due diligence under the discoverability principle.