S. Sud

The proposed defendant, Trisan, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's lawyer to answer questions refused during cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of a motion to amend the statement of claim.

The refused questions related to instructions the lawyer received from the plaintiff regarding the timing of adding Trisan as a defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions were properly refused on the basis of solicitor-client privilege and that the plaintiff's post-discovery litigation strategy was irrelevant to the application of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute a new corporate entity as the plaintiff, having mistakenly named the former property owners instead of the actual owner at the time of the fire loss.

The defendants opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court granted the amendment, finding it was a true case of misnomer and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also set aside an ex parte costs order previously made against the plaintiffs, finding their counsel's failure to attend the motion was due to an honest misunderstanding.