The plaintiff, a personal support worker, was assaulted by an elderly resident with severe dementia shortly after his admission to a retirement home.
She sued the resident's son and power of attorney, alleging he failed to disclose the extent of his father's aggressive behaviour.
The son moved for summary judgment, arguing he owed no duty of care.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the novel duty of care analysis required factual findings regarding the son's knowledge and disclosures that could only be made at trial.
The plaintiffs also moved to add the retirement home's parent companies as defendants after learning the home was uninsured.
The court dismissed this motion, holding that the amendment was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, did not qualify as a misnomer, and lacked pleaded facts to justify piercing the corporate veil.
