Y. Jabbour

The plaintiff brought a motion to add their own insurer as a defendant and to extend the time for serving the statement of claim on the defendant vehicle owner, along with a request for substituted service.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel had been highly dilatory in pursuing the claim.

The court allowed the addition of the insurer as a defendant, noting a triable issue regarding discoverability, but preserved the insurer's right to plead a limitation defence.

However, the court dismissed the motions to extend time for service and for substituted service against the vehicle owner, finding the plaintiff failed to provide evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice arising from the expired limitation period and failed to make sufficient efforts at personal service.

The defendants and third party brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who ordinarily resides in India following a slip and fall incident in Ontario.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity and relying on an adverse costs protection insurance policy.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of impecuniosity insufficient and held that the insurance policy did not provide adequate security for the defendants due to its numerous exclusions and misrepresentations in the application.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $7,500 in security for the defendants' costs but dismissed the third party's request, as the plaintiff had not sued the third party.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve a Statement of Claim arising from a motor vehicle collision, or alternatively to validate service nunc pro tunc.

The court applied the governing principles for extending time under the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that relevant prejudice must arise from delay in service rather than the passage of time since the cause of action arose.

The defendant’s insurer had early notice of the potential claim through a third‑party notice letter shortly after the accident, enabling investigation if desired.

The defendant failed to provide evidence of actual prejudice caused by the delay.

The court therefore granted a 21‑day extension of time for service and awarded costs to the plaintiff.