Stephen R. Schenke

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to correct misnomers and add several corporate entities as defendants in an action stemming from a fire.

The motion sought to correct the name of "Cooper Lighting Internacional, S. de R.L. de C.V." to "Cooper Lighting de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V." and to add "Cooper Lighting LLC", "Cooper Lighting Canada Limited", "SLP Lighting LLC", "Koller Enterprises", and "David Koller".

Applying the principles of misnomer from Loy-English, the court found that the "litigation finger" pointed at the Cooper Lighting entities and SLP Lighting LLC, allowing their addition/correction despite delays.

However, the requests to add Koller Enterprises and David Koller were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of their direct involvement as manufacturers or distributors.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendments, noting the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendants and shared responsibility for litigation delays.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement against the plaintiff estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale totaling over $67,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the need for proportionality given the settlement amount of $105,000.

The court awarded costs to the defendants in the total amount of $45,000, payable by the estate.

The plaintiff, Torsten Klasen, commenced a $15,000,000 claim in Toronto, which was subsequently transferred to Windsor by order of Howard J. with costs of $3,500 payable by Klasen.

Klasen failed to pay these costs for approximately 17 months.

The defendants, 469311 Ontario Ltd. (Myers Towing) and Elaine Myers, brought a motion to strike Klasen's claim against them due to the non-payment of costs and the frivolous nature of the claim.

The court found Klasen's actions consistent with an intent to drive up costs and complicate proceedings, and that he demonstrated no intention to be responsible for the costs.

The motion was granted, striking Klasen's claim against the moving defendants and awarding them $1,500 in costs for the current motion.

The moving defendants sought summary dismissal of a cross‑claim arising from a three‑vehicle motor vehicle collision.

The responding defendants alleged the moving defendants’ excessive speed caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court held that causation regarding speed and injury severity required expert evidence and that the responding defendants had produced none.

Given the expert reconstruction evidence filed by the moving defendants indicating the collision was unavoidable and injuries would have been similar at the posted speed limit, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary dismissal of the cross‑claim.