S. Alam

Following a motion in a civil action, the court addressed costs after written submissions were invited.

Only the responding party, a proposed defendant, filed submissions seeking partial indemnity costs.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the time spent by counsel was not manifestly unreasonable and that the matter had not been overly lawyered.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis in favour of the successful responding party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to change the location of an alleged slip and fall and to add a new corporate defendant as the owner or landlord of the premises.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of reasonable diligence to discover the identity of the proper defendant within the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also rejected reliance on the doctrine of special circumstances, noting binding appellate authority that the doctrine cannot extend a limitation period.

The proposed amendment could not be justified as a correction of a misnomer under s. 21(2) because the amendment would alter the underlying material facts and the proposed defendant could not reasonably have known it was the intended defendant.

The motion to amend and add the party was dismissed and the derivative Family Law Act claims were also barred.