Sonya Madeline Katrycz

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add their own automobile insurer, TD Insurance, as a defendant under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement, following an accident with an uninsured motorist.

The motion considered the application of the Limitations Act, 2002, to claims for indemnification against an insurer, specifically when the limitation period begins and if discoverability and due diligence apply.

The court granted leave to amend, finding triable issues regarding discoverability and due diligence, and that no non-compensable prejudice would result to TD Insurance, which had been involved in the plaintiffs' accident benefits claims since 2014.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a civil action alleging misuse of personal financial information obtained from court filings in related family litigation.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, a mortgage broker associated with the former spouse of one plaintiff, provided their financial information to a third‑party lender without consent, leading to the creation of a financing letter later used in court proceedings.

The defendant argued the claim disclosed no cause of action and was barred by the two‑year limitation period.

The court held that the pleadings could potentially support the tort of intrusion upon seclusion as recognized in Jones v. Tsige and that alternative legal characterizations of pleaded facts do not create a new cause of action outside the limitation period.

It was not plain and obvious that the action would fail, and the defendant’s motions for dismissal for delay and summary judgment were dismissed.