Thomas Durcan

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the name of defendant YM Inc. (Sales) o/a Sirens to La Maison Simons Inc. based on misnomer.

The motion was dismissed because the plaintiff had previously discontinued her action against Sirens on October 15, 2024, making the remedy of misnomer unavailable.

The court also found that the plaintiff did not seek to add Simons as a distinct party in the notice of motion.

Additionally, the court determined that even if adding Simons as a separate party were considered, the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving that the limitation period should run from any date other than the date of injury (November 3, 2019), which would be outside the applicable limitation period.

Costs were awarded to the proposed defendant.

The moving party defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for delay.

The action arose from two separate events in 2009—an alleged slip and fall accident and a motor vehicle accident—and had been ongoing since 2011.

A timetable was imposed in 2015 requiring completion of discoveries, mediation, and trial set-down by specific dates.

The appellant failed to comply with the timetable.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay and for failure to abide by a court order.

The action arose from a 2009 slip and fall and a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff failed to meet any of the deadlines set out in a 2015 timetable order and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice that the plaintiff failed to rebut.

The court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action under both Rule 24.01 and Rule 60.12.

A municipal defendant sought costs after being named in a slip‑and‑fall action despite evidence that it neither owned nor maintained the property.

Ownership and maintenance responsibilities were admitted by the other defendants, yet the plaintiff refused to discontinue the claim against the municipality until after a summary judgment motion was served.

The court held that commencing the action and participating in discoveries was not unreasonable, but maintaining the claim thereafter unnecessarily increased litigation costs.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, though reduced from the amount claimed.