W.G. Scott

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a complex action involving TD Bank and numerous insurance underwriters.

The court addressed the management of three pending discovery motions (defendants' refusals, plaintiff's refusals, and defendants' motion for a second discovery representative) and trial management issues.

The court declined the plaintiff's request to expand their refusals motion, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw their existing refusals motion without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled trial date of September 13, 2021, as the action was not ready.

The court provided specific case management directions for completing discoveries, updating motion materials, and preparing for a future trial date.

In an insurance coverage action, the parties brought three motions regarding discovery refusals and the examination of a second discovery representative.

The judge determined that the motions were within the jurisdiction of a Master and, pursuant to the Toronto Region Consolidated Practice Direction, transferred the motions to a Master for determination.

The judge also ordered a case conference to address procedural deficiencies and ensure the orderly development of the motions for hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside registrar’s orders dismissing two personal injury actions as abandoned under Rule 48.15(1) after the claims were not served within the prescribed time.

The delay resulted from the plaintiff’s lawyer being misled by a former law clerk who falsely indicated the claims had been served and allegedly concealed dismissal notices.

Applying the factors articulated in Habib v. Mucaj and Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court considered the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay was not deliberate, the motion was brought promptly once the issue was discovered, and the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

The registrar’s dismissal orders were set aside and service of the statements of claim was validated.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal of their action for delay after failing to meet a court‑ordered deadline to set the action down for trial.

The dispute concerned contribution between insurers following a fire loss exceeding $27 million.

The court considered whether the delay was adequately explained, whether the failure to meet the deadline was inadvertent, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether the defendant would suffer prejudice.

Although the action had previously been dismissed for delay, the court found the delay imperfect but reasonably explained, partly attributable to counsel’s health issues and shared litigation delays by both parties.

Given the absence of actual prejudice and the document‑driven nature of the coverage dispute, the interests of justice favoured setting aside the dismissal and establishing a new peremptory timetable.