Wolfram U. Tausendfreund

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add a railway company as a defendant and to amend their statement of claim following a train–motor vehicle collision.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in identifying it earlier.

The court held that the discoverability principle applied because the plaintiffs reasonably believed the train operator was responsible for the crossing until examinations for discovery revealed that another entity controlled the tracks and signals.

The court found the plaintiffs had acted with reasonable diligence and that the proposed defendant suffered no actual prejudice given its early knowledge of the accident.

The motion to add the party and amend the claim was granted, with leave to the added defendant to plead a limitation defence.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a wrongful dismissal action and argued that prior findings in a defamation proceeding barred the plaintiffs from introducing additional affidavit evidence under the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The defendant asserted that the earlier decision had already determined that surveillance cameras were installed to intercept private communications, constituting a criminal act justifying termination under the management consulting agreement.

The court held that the earlier decision only determined that private communications had been intercepted under the Criminal Code and did not determine whether the conduct constituted a criminal act of dishonesty resulting in personal gain as required under the contract.

Because the issues in the contractual termination clause had not been fully adjudicated, the prerequisites for issue estoppel were not met.

The court exercised its discretion to permit the plaintiffs to rely on the proposed affidavits in defending the summary judgment motion.

In a medical negligence trial arising from a compromised birth, the plaintiffs alleged that labour and delivery nurses failed to meet obstetrical monitoring standards before a severe bradycardic event.

The court found that active labour had begun by at least 18:00, requiring half-hourly auscultation, and held the nursing care fell below the standard by failing to monitor appropriately, verify concerning findings, and escalate monitoring.

On causation, the court preferred expert evidence that a prolonged partial hypoxic-ischemic process likely developed before 21:00 and would probably have been detected with proper surveillance.

The court concluded earlier intervention would likely have prevented or substantially reduced the neurological injury.

The hospital was found liable, with damages previously admitted subject to approval.